Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CANE HILL CEMETERY BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Education Vouchers

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities on the education voucher scheme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): None, Sir.

Mr. Atkinson: In thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, does he accept that parents who sacrifice to send their children to private fee-paying schools are, in effect, paying twice for their children's education? In any future discussions with local authorities on implementing a voucher scheme will he ensure that such schemes include the private sector?

Dr. Boyson: Any local authority that wishes to consider the voucher scheme would obviously assess whether it should merely apply to the State sector or be extended to the independent sector. That will be a decision for the local authority. It is a matter on which we might be consulted, but the decision would be for the local authority. On my hon. Friend's other point, the assisted places scheme will open the door for many children who cannot afford to go to independent schools to do so, once it is in operation.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister agree that all parents, particularly those with children attending schools in the maintained sector, will be making sacrifices in the future as a consequence of school meal charges and transport charges? Will he refute the suggestion made by his hon. Friend for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that sacrifices will be made only by those sending their children to private schools?

Dr. Boyson: Certain independent radicals would consider all taxes a sacrifice. People do not get back simply what they put in. One appreciates that, in certain cases, parents pay extra because they consider the matter important. We are concerned, as a Government, to extend parental choice not only for those inside the independent sector but for those inside the State sector.

Mr. John Wells: Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that the proposed pilot scheme in the county of Kent has now vanished?

Dr. Boyson: Not at all. The proposed pilot scheme brought forward by Kent is entirely at the discretion of Kent. It is for Kent to decide when the scheme should be brought into operation. There is nothing to prevent Kent from bringing it into operation at any time, at its discretion.

Mr. Armstrong: Will the Minister recognise that a difference in educational opportunity which arises because of a difference in the size of a parent's bank account is a barbarity in these days? Will he not waste his time on the voucher scheme but give his attention to the real problems in the education service?

Dr. Boyson: If every difference in income in this country is a barbarity, barbarism will be with us for a great length of time. If parents have books and watch BBC 2—which, presumably, has educational programmes—this is discriminatory within the terms of what the right hon. Gentleman says. What we want is not to cut down opportunity for those who have it, but to extend opportunity for those who do not have it.

Mr. Lawrence: May I express the hope that my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the voucher scheme has not


diminished as a result of elevation to his present high office, particularly bearing in mind the importance of that scheme for extending freedom of choice to parents?

Dr. Boyson: I can assure my hon. Friend that I pray regularly about the matter every evening. The decision whether to introduce the voucher scheme is for local authorities. We have always said that we would look on with interest and would not oppose any experimental voucher schemes in Kent, or anywhere else.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I press the Minister about his attitude to local authorities introducing a voucher scheme? Is he saying that his Department would advocate such a scheme and would not provide any barriers to its introduction? Does he know of any local authorities which are actively considering this step?

Dr. Boyson: The decision whether to introduce a voucher scheme is for local authorities. We would obviously not prevent this from happening. It is well within the powers of local authorities, whatever hon. Members may say. It is entirely up to them. Many of us will look with interest upon such a scheme, as would parents in the area.

Meals and Transport Charges

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for monitoring the increases in school meal and school transport charges to be imposed by local education authorities as a result of the Education (No. 2) Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): My Department is maintaining a close interest in these matters and in the progress being made by local education authorities towards decisions on the issues.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that the proposals already announced by some local authorities mean that many poor families just above the supplementary benefit and family income supplement levels will have to meet extra charges of between £5 and £10 a week? What steps is he taking to try to persuade the more reactionary Conservative-controlled

local authorities to modify their policies?

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has indicated the features that he would like local authorities to regard as good practice. During the passage of the legislation it was emphasised strenuously in Committee and on the Floor of the House that local authorities must determine their own course of action. We are confident that local education authorities and head teachers are aware of such families. Supplementary benefit and family income supplement is taken into account and the local authorities have power to add to that help.

Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not just a matter of good practice but of new practice in the provision of school meals? Does my hon. Friend agree that counties such as Somerset, which have run schemes alongside the State traditional scheme, operating at greater cost, have experienced a bigger take-up and that parents are prepared to pay for alternative types of food? Will my hon. Friend take steps to spread such schemes to other authorities?

Mr. Macfarlane: It is not my right hon. and learned Friend's practice to lay down strict guidelines about the precise content of meals and what form they should take. Somerset has given us a fine example of how catering can be diversified. Somerset is not alone. Hon. Members will be aware of what happens in their constituencies. The cafeteria or snack type convenience foods are the hallmarks of many young peoples' eating habits and are popular.

Mr. Beith: How many local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have decided not to introduce school transport charges? Will the Minister commend those authorities?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give a detailed reply to that question.

Mr. Canavan: Why not?

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall answer the question put from a sedentary position. My Department is maintaining a close liaison with the local authorities to find out precisely what their charges will be once the legislation has completed its


passage. Not all local authorities have yet taken the full council vote. A number of recommendations have been made. It is as simple as that. I shall notify the House as soon as possible and I shall write to the hon. Member as the situation develops.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Minister's reply mean that he has not a clue what the changes wrought by the Education (No. 2) Bill will mean in terms of charges on parents, access to schools and the injustices that will be perpetrated as a result of the new charges? Has he not a responsibility to children and parents throughout the country? Is this not a desertion of that responsibility?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Member disappoints me. His synthetic indignation has occurred too early this afternoon. Not all the plans are known by local authorities. The hon. Gentleman obviously misunderstands, because the Bill has not completed all its stages. Clauses 22 and 23 were contentious and it will be some time before local authorities reach their decisions.

Comprehensive Reorganisation

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schemes for reorganisation of schools on a comprehensive system he has rejected since May 1979.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): One, Sir.

Mr. Woolmer: Does the Secretary of State agree that his decision on 18 February to reject the Kirklees authority's proposals for comprehensive education at Batley reveals that the Conservative promise to back local choice and to back comprehensive schools—where they are chosen—is a sham? Why did the Secretary of State not give a single reason for that rejection, either to me or the local authority? Does he accept that that was a high-handed way of treating local opinion since the parents, councillors, the Member of Parliament and all the teachers supported the proposed scheme?

Mr. Carlisle: Normal practice is just to announce the Secretary of State's decision. That was done in this case. The

real difference between the hon. Member and myself about the Kirklees proposal is that Labour Members were determined to force local education authorities to go comprehensive and to close grammar and secondary modern schools, irrespective of local circumstances, whereas Conservative Members are determined to assess each case on its merits. We are determined to assess each case on educational, social and financial grounds and to attempt to make a fair assessment of the genuine views of local people.

Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his decision about north-east Kirkless has been received with great relief by the overwhelming majority of parents, thousands of whom signed a petition which I delivered to his Department? Is he aware that they signed that petition, whether they approved of comprehensive education or not, on the basis that the proposed scheme was out of keeping with the educational interests of the children in the area?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In rejecting the proposals by the Kirkless authority we were acting on educational and financial grounds and on our assessment of the views of local people.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that when he talks about freedom for local authorities he means that local authorities should be free to implement the cuts that he is forcing on them? When it comes to basic decisions, such as that involving Kirklees, is he not overriding local authorities and not allowing them the freedom that they should have? The Secretary of State says that he rejected a case because it lacked merit. How are local people to know the demerits if he will not give his reasons for rejecting a proposition? Surely that makes it a political decision?

Mr. Carlisle: It was not a political decision. The decision was taken after an assessment of the merits of the case. If section 13 is to mean anything the Secretary of State must have the responsibility to assess not only an application but the objections to it. My responsibility is to do my best to take a view about what is the correct decision.

Later:

Mr. Woolmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that I received from the Secretary of State for Education and Science regarding the reorganisation of secondary schools in Batley, I give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Further Education

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals to help those students who, for various reasons, discontinued full-time education before gaining academic qualifications.

Mr. Macfarlane: A range of opportunities already exist to help such students obtain academic qualifications. My right hon. and learned Friend has no new, additional proposals in mind.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the planned savage reductions in university intake next year will hit particularly hard those who, because they are talented, deserve a second chance at higher education? Does he share the enthusiasm of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for expanding the Open University to give such people second chances at degree level courses and below?

Mr. Macfarlane: I always share the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Government appreciate the need for people to be able to return to education when their circumstances and needs make that appropriate. The Government are staunch supporters of the Open University principle. The Government acknowledge the importance of the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education. The House will be aware of a number of other initiatives which the Government have taken with such people in mind. However, there are no firm proposals at present.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend comment on the disgraceful treatment that his colleague the Under-Secretary of State received at the hands of London School of Economics students last week? Would he care to recommend that the grants of the offending students be withdrawn?

Mr. Macfarlane: I certainly do not consider it my duty to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) how he should handle insults at meetings. We can perhaps learn from him. I acknowledge the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) but I do not believe that it is up to us to interfere with the grants of those particular students.

Common Core Curriculum

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken on the findings of the secondary schools survey undertaken by his Department on the common core curriculum.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Her Majesty's Inspectorate's surveys of primary and secondary education, and the Education Department's review of local authority curricular arrangements, have now been followed by proposals for a framework for the school curriculum published in January, and a view of the curriculum published by Her Majesy's inspectors, Consultations are now under way on the framework proposals.

Mr. Dormand: While agreeing in principle to the idea of a common core, may I suggest to the Secretary of State that he proceeds with caution in the matter? Does he agree that the present shortage of specialist teachers in, for example, mathematics, the sciences and modern languages, makes it impossible to introduce a common core? Does he further agree that the cuts in public expenditure affect this issue, and that both of those factors are likely to be with us for some considerable time?

Mr. Carlisle: The consultations arise from the desire on the part of the Department to reach agreement, both with local authorities and the teaching unions, as to what should be the general principles covering a core curriculum. Of course, I am aware of the effect of the shortage of teachers in certain specialist subjects on our ability to implement that core curriculum. I am concerned about this. We are trying to persuade the teacher training colleges to give shortage subjects priority within their training systems. We are continuing for a further year the scheme for re-training teachers in the shortage subjects.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend move speedily with the consultations, recognising the importance of implementing the new ideas as soon as possible? Will he turn his attention especially to the imbalance in the curriculum at many teacher training colleges, where not enough attention is paid to teaching practice and too much attention is paid to educational theory?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall certainly move as speedily as possible. Overall, the proposals set out in our framework for the curriculum have had a very welcome response.

Mr. Kinnock: Were the National Association of Schoolmasters and the Union of Women Teachers, among those giving a welcome to the proposals? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the validity of what they were saying, namely that it is impossible and implausible effectively to introduce a core curriculum unless he is willing to commit the necessary additional finances—which are substantial—to make that an effective change in the provision of schooling in Britain? Will he provide that finance?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. As have said already, the shortage of teachers in specialist subjects is an important matter when considering what can be included in the core curriculum. I believe that one can make improvements in the curriculum in schools, and improvements in the standards without such improvements being always necessarily dependent on the spending of resources.

Mr. Christopher Price: While approving of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's desire to press ahead with the issue, may I ask whether he is aware that the curriculum and the examination system are inextricably mixed? Is he further aware that his recent decision to make one group, the GCE boards, solely responsible for grades 1, 2 and 3 in a particular examination, and a wholly different group, the CSE boards, responsible for grades 4, 5 and 6, is a recipe for lunacy and cannot work? Will he re-think his examination proposals?

Mr. Carlisle: Our proposals for common certifications and common gradings, and an agreement of the national criterion of a common core for the syllabus for

examinations, fits in totally with our proposals for a common core curriculum.

Social Work (Qualification)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received during the last six months about the need to make discretionary awards for the certificate of qualified social work mandatory.

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend has received about 30 letters on the subject, mainly from hon. Members of this House and organisations with a particular concern for social work.

Mr. Bennett: Does not the Minister agree that, as the Government have complete control over the number of places that are available for training in social work, it is crazy not to ensure that there are awards for all the students who are allocated one of those places?

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He has raised the matter before. If, at the present time of financial restraint, we were to extend mandatory grants to social workers—which would cost about £1½ million—they would have to be similarly extended to training for other vocational courses, and that could cost more than £10 million a year.

School-leaving Regulations

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to change the school-leaving regulations, particularly in respect of those wishing to take up apprenticeships.

Dr. Boyson: The present leaving arrangements are governed by section 9 of the Education Act 1962 as amended by the Education (School Leaving Dates) Act 1976. Any changes would require legislation and my right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to introduce amending legislation.

Mr. Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing reply? Does he not agree that it is quite absurd that a boy who reaches the age of 16 in October, and who wishes to take up a genuine apprenticeship, is not allowed to


leave school at Christmas but has to stay until the following Easter? Is not that quite ridiculous, and is it not time that we operated the regulations more sensibly and flexibly?

Dr. Boyson: I understand my hon. Friend's depth of feeling on the matter. The reason why there are two leaving dates—some teachers would prefer one leaving date—is that teachers can at least teach coherently throughout the year, which could not be done if youngsters fell out every Monday and Wednesday throughout the year.
My right hon. and learned Friend is asked, from time to time, to consider legislating to allow early leaving for those with offers of jobs or apprenticeships, those who wish to enter the Armed Services or those who wish to pursue a course of further education. A working party is currently considering the educational provision for 16 to 19-year-olds and will consider again the posibility of early transfer to courses in further education.

Mr. Flannery: Will not the Minister admit that from the inception of education in this country the Conservative Party has been trying to trundle our children out of school into the factories as early as possible? [Interruption.] The noise that Conservative Members are making now proves that I have made a point. Will he not further admit that it is our children that Tory Members want to get out of school quickly and into the factories, and not their children, to whom they are about to give £60 million of our money, while cutting down education for our children?

Dr. Boyson: The £60 million mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is not going to "our" children, the children of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is going to parents who cannot afford to send their children to fee-paying schools, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would read the scheme and note the maintenance level. It might be interesting if the hon. Gentleman strengthened his knowledge of history by looking back to see who raised the school leaving age from 15 to 16.

Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency a boy who was 16 on 1 September could have left

school a year earlier if he had been born a day earlier, on 31 August? He had a job to go to and was disappointed—as were his parents—that he was unable to leave school and take up employment. Cannot my right hon. and learned Friend legislate for some sensible and flexible policy?

Mr. Flannery: I bet that it was not the hon. Gentleman's son.

Dr. Boyson: I understand my hon. Friend's depth of feeling on the matter. However, if we moved the date to 1 September someone whose birthday fell on 2 September would then grumble. It seems that it is something that parents will have to consider in the future at the moment of conception.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister confirm that there is very little demand from vast areas of Britain for any alteration to the school regulations about the leaving age simply because there are no apprenticeships available for youngsters?

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate that at a time of high unemployment it is more difficult for those leaving school to find jobs. We are concerned to build up the standards in the basic subjects so that those leaving at the age of 16 are ready to take apprenticeships when the upturn comes in our economy.

Microelectronics

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is now in a position to make a statement on education in microelectronics at school promised in the Official Report, 5 February, column 141.

Mr. Macfarlane: With the agreement of his colleagues, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided to initiate a development programme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland starting in 1980–81. A separate programme is being mounted in Scotland. The programme will give schools and colleges a better understanding of the potential applications of microelectronics technology by commissioning new development projects and building on existing work in this field. A sum of £9 million at November 1979 prices will be made available for this purpose over the next four years.

Expenditure Cuts (Educational Standards)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect the recent cuts in education expenditure will have on standards in educational institutions.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The Government's planned reductions in expenditure on education in 1980–81 have been concentrated in areas not directly concerned with teaching in the classroom so as to ensure that standards in educational institutions can be maintained or improved.

Mr. Canavan: If the Secretary of State is seriously intent on improving standards, will he provide more money to employ more teachers so as to reduce class sizes in the State schools, which cater for the vast majority of children, instead of proposing to put £60 million of public money into the pockets of the minority of parents who want to buy extra privileges—real or imaginary—by sending their children to private, fee-paying, selective schools?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot offer more money for teachers at present. My proposals for 1980–81 assume an overall reduction in expenditure of 3½ per cent. at a time when the number of pupils will drop by 4.7 per cent. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows full well that the assisted places scheme has no relationship whatsoever to the year 1980–81. It does not start until 1981–82, and then at a cost of £3 million.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend not always to listen to those who want to reduce class sizes? Will he consider using any extra money that may be available to pay teachers more so that more qualified people enter and stay in the profession?

Mr. Carlisle: We are certainly anxious to have a highly qualified teaching force, and that is why we are moving slowly to an all-graduate teaching profession.

Mr. Cohen: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the effect which the Government's policy is having on the service which local authorities throughout the country provide? For example, is he aware that in the city of Leeds, which has a Tory-controlled council, school meals will be increased by 5p,

any school swimming parties that require transportation will be cancelled during the summer, free school milk will be cancelled for children, except those who have medical qualifications to obtain it and overseas students' tuition fees will be increased by 100 per cent? Is he further aware of the problems that that will create for many of our constituents? Will he also take into account the fact that the cutback in the youth service programme will amount to £75,000 in Leeds, and that young people in industry need youth clubs and facilities?

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of the need to reduce public expenditiure overall, because if we do not do so, and if we cannot put more money back into the private sector, in the end we shall not have the wealth to provide the public services in this country.

Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the problems is that people are convinced that only by spending more money does one achieve a higher standard? Does he further agree that what we should do is, for example, to improve teacher training so that we are using the money that we are able to provide more effectively in the schools of Britain?

Mr. Carlisle: I totally agree. As I have just said, one of the purposes of our proposals on the core curriculum is to try to improve the standard of what is taught in schools.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view, which has been expressed in the House and elsewhere—that cuts can be made outside the classroom—an absolute misconception of what is taking place? Has he noticed the views of the British Educational Equipment Association, the National Book League and the Educational Publishers' Council, which show that this year there will be a £4·5 million cut in capitation on books, a £1·5 million cut in spending and the equivalent in real terms of a 26 per cent. cut in expenditure on books in our schools? Can he really still say that the cuts will take place only outside the classroom and that they are not eating into education standards?

Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, all that I can do is to provide


through the rate support grant for relevant expenditure. As to non-teaching costs, which includes books, we have assumed a 2 per cent. increase in expenditure in that area. But I repeat, against a reduction in the number of pupils of 4·7 per cent., we are looking for a 3·5 per cent. reduction in expenditure. A few Question Times ago, the hon. Gentleman said that if we achieved that it would be good husbandry.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? In view of the fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to indicate that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very well. The hon. Gentleman will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Teachers' Trade Unions

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to meet officials of the National Union of Teachers.

13. Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to meet representatives of the teachers' trade unions.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am hoping to meet representatives of the Association of Principals of Colleges later today, and I hope to attend the Easter conferences of the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that the Minister does not get a roasting at that conference. Does the NUT accept his proposition that the quality of education has not been affected, and will not be affected, by the cuts that have already been made in public expenditure and the cuts that will come in the future? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, if the quality of education is to be maintained, local rates will inevitably have to be put up very substantially? Will he agree with the NUT if it puts pressure on the local authorities to increase the rates so as to maintain standards?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes to me when I attend the NUT conference. I realise that the NUT does not accept the arguments that I have put forward. However, let me give the hon. Gentleman one fact, which is that at present we have the lowest pupil-teacher ratio that we have ever had, and we envisage a continuation of that.

Mr. Evans: When the Secretary of State does meet the teachers' unions, and I am sure that he will receive a courteous reception, will he explain how he can afford to introduce an expensive assisted places scheme when education authorities such as Cheshire county council, as a result of a shortage of cash, have to axe sixth-form provision in a brand-new comprehensive school at Padgate in my constituency?

Mr. Carlisle: I can only repeat that the cost of the assisted places scheme does not start until the year 1981–82, and it is assumed that it will cost about £3 million out of a total education budget of £8 billion a year. That £3 million will go towards assisting individual parents whose children we believe will benefit from the opportunity of the education that they will be able to obtain.

Mr. William Shelton: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the NUT, will lie diplomatically point out that his proposals for a common examination system have met with universal acceptance elsewhere?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the NUT was the only body which appeared to be out of step with the general reaction to the proposals that we have made.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that many NUT members fear increasing friction between the voluntary and county schools within the maintained sector, partly through falling rolls, partly through the Education (No. 2) Bill and partly because of the action of certain churches, particularly the Church of England in respect of Twyford school in Ealing? Will he bear that in mind when he considers the section 13 application that is now before him?

Mr. Carlisle: I repeat that section 13 proposals will be looked at on their


merits. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am also concerned with the interests of parents. I believe that parents have the right to choose between both Church schools and maintained schools within as wide an area as possible.

Mr. Heddle: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets officials of the NUT will he discuss with them ways whereby unauthorised absenteeism can be monitored on a county by county basis in order to eliminate school truancy as much as possible?

Mr. Carlisle: When I meet the NUT I am sure that many things of different natures affecting education will be discussed.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: When the Secretary of State next meets the NUT does he expect to have any good news for it with regard to the transport clauses in the Education (No. 2) Bill, bearing in mind that the NUT was vigorously opposed to those clauses? Has his Department reconsidered its position with regard to those clauses, or does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend that the Department should ride roughshod over the other place in the same way as he has ignored opinion in this House and outside on this issue?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady says that I have ignored opinion. There was a full debate on the transport clauses and they were carried by a majority vote of this House. If I had to tell the NUT conference that the transport clauses had been removed it would inevitably mean that savings would have to be found from elsewhere in the budget, which would have a far greater effect on the employment of teachers.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications he has now received from schools wishing to take part in the assisted places scheme; and whether he has ruled out any of the applicant schools.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In reply to the Department's letter of 6 December, 460 schools in England have indicated interest in the scheme on a provisional basis. These replies are still under consideration.

Mr. Beith: Is it not still the case that, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman has weeded out the schools that are not up to the standard that he has set for the scheme, he will not have enough places to meet his target? In view of the rather ungracious comments made by the Prime Minister about Lord Butler, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear whether Marlborough has applied to become part of the scheme and, if so, whether it has been accepted?

Mr. Carlisle: I realise that there are certain schools that have applied which may be unable to satisfy the criteria that we have set. That does not mean that I am not satisfied that the number of applications that we have had will more than meet the numbers we are considering. In fact, 118 of the 120 previous direct grant schools have applied. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The whole purpose of the scheme is to give to a wider area of parents the opportunity of a higher academic education at certain of the old direct grant schools which were forced to go independent by the actions of the Labour Party.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend nail the lie that has been put about by the Opposition that the assisted places scheme is actually going to cost money by telling the House how many thousands of millions of pounds the country would save if every child in the country went on the assisted places scheme?

Mr. Carlisle: If my hon. Friend wants an answer to that question, he will have to table it. Those who will be covered by the scheme would otherwise be educated at the total cost of the taxpayer within the maintained sector.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that far fewer schools have applied for the scheme than the Minister expected—indeed, massively fewer, if I may use that adverb. Does that indicate that, even in Tory areas, comprehensive education is now accepted as a high form of education? Is this not a reality with which he is having to grapple? Will he not have to weed out some of the schools that have applied, with the result that he will have still fewer than he expected?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I repeat that of the 120 direct grant grammar schools in England which are in the process of becoming independent, 118 have asked to join the scheme.

Dispute (South Yorkshire)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will carry out an inquiry into the dispute in South Yorkshire which is currently causing some children to be deprived of classroom education as a result of the enforcement of maximum numbers for classes by teachers.

Dr. Boyson: I am glad to be able to inform the House that this dispute has been resolved, and that the education of children in Rotherham is no longer subject to disruption.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that it is moss regrettable that children have had to suffer disruption of their education in the classroom because of a conflict between teachers and the local education authority? Does the Minister agree that we should send our best wishes to the two parents, the teachers and the education authority? Will he ensure that in future children's education does not suffer because of any conflict that arises? If a conflict does arise, will he issue some guidelines or advice to the teachers, the parents and the local education authority to ensure—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Boyson: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. All hon. Members will be glad that, after 18 months, normal schooling has returned in Rotherham. The Department was by no means idle. My noble Friend the Minister of State met both sides. She was prepared to chair a meeting of both sides. However, now that the schools have gone back we hope that the good spirit will continue and that there will be no more disruption.

Business Studies

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied that there is sufficient provision within the school education syllabus to encourage pupils to follow courses in business studies.

Mr. Macfarlane: Nearly all secondary schools in England offer options in business studies. About one-third of all pupils in the fourth and fifth years are involved in some elements of business studies. The adequacy of provision is a matter for individual local education authorities and schools to consider in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the degree of expertise among the teachers of business studies varies considerably? Will he examine that with a view to upgrading the standard of teachers of business studies, so as to get better results from the puils who take the subject?

Mr. Macfarlane: The argument that the hon. Gentleman advances does not apply everywhere. In many local education authority areas the teaching is of the highest calibre. However, I hope that the point that he makes will become increasingly more understood by more local education authorities, by chief education officers and by chairmen of committees so that it is generally ensured that the highest standard is maintained.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that business studies are generally more suitable for older children—for example, those over 18 years of age—and that those under the age of 18 years should master the three 'Rs' and general education first before taking business studies?

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not necessarily entirely subscribe to that view. Surely it is a matter for the individual head teacher to decide. In certain circumstances those in the fourth and fifth years could benefit from some introduction to business studies at that stage. I endorse the point that the subject is, perhaps, more suitable for children of an older age, but there can be no preconception about this

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Q 1. Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.


This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Janner: Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider the ways in which county education authorities are putting the main burden of education cuts on to city schools and city children? Will she consider how to convey to county education authorities, such as the authority in Leicester, the anxiety and the anger of parents and teachers alike at the cuts in nursery education, the cuts in ancillaries and the mean and dangerous cuts in the number of school crossing attendants?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such tendency as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned as far as county education authorities are concerned. I do not believe that they are deliberately putting cuts on the main cities in their areas. I am certain that he will take it up with his own authority if that is the case there. As for the general education budget, I can only remind him that the cost per pupil in the education service will continue to rise and be met under the education budget.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend remind the country, British management and the trade unions, that orders equal production equals jobs equals profit equals investment equals more jobs, and that that is the basis of the return to a healthy industrial economy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it so brilliantly and so succinctly. I wholly endorse what he says.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister and her party pleased with Mr. Mugabe's decisive election victory? Would it not be appropriate if the right hon. Lady publicly warned the South African authorities not to interfere in any way with the newly independent Government of that country?

The Prime Minister: I think that the most appropriate thing that I can do is to say that the arrangement of free and fair elections under all the circumstances has been an outstanding achievement, which many people a few months ago would have thought impossible, that the Governor is to be warmly congratulated as are the Army, the monitoring forces under General Acland and the police. The

object was to arrange those elections. It was for the people of Rhodesia to say exactly whom they wished to have under those elections. The Governor has, of course, today seen Mr. Mugabe and asked him to set in train the processes of forming a Government. But it is now a time for reconciliation, of hope and encouragement for all of those who fought in the election to work together.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Did my right hon. Friend notice yesterday that sterling depreciated against the dollar by three cents? May I congratulate her on resisting pressure in the past few weeks temporarily to increase our minimum lending rate? Will she ensure that the Bank of England in the course of the next few weeks does not react to the depreciation of sterling by increasing our MLR?

The Prime Minister: I had, indeed, noticed the fall. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is never possible to have artificial restraints that will resist the market for long. I believe that the most important thing at the moment, if we are to get inflation down, is to control the money supply. That will be the prime objective of our policy.

Mr. David Steel: Did not the Prime Minister make one strange omission from her list of congratulations? Should she not congratulate the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and wish him well in the difficult task that he is to undertake?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we usually do that on the day when independence is given. Of course, we wish the whole of Zimbabwe well in forming a Government and in taking over the duties that it will shortly assume on independence.

PROFESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE REGISTER

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Prime Minister if she will take steps to disband the Professional and Executive Register of the Manpower Services Commission.

The Prime Minister: We shall take a decision on the future of the Professional and Executive Register shortly.

Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the steadily decreasing share


of the market obtained by this service, and the steadily increasing cost in gross terms to the Exchequer? Is she further aware that the nationalised industries have refused to use the service, and that the private sector cannot afford to use it? In those circumstances, is it not time that the money was put to more effective use?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that only one in 25 people on the register secure jobs by means of the register. However, they must be registered somewhere, if they are to receive unemployment benefit. The future of the PER is under review, and the question is whether people should have to register under the general employment register or whether the Professional and Executive Register should be reshaped and restyled so as to be more economical, and people should still be able to register under it. I shall convey my hon. Friend's sentiments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Marks: Will the Prime Minister in her role as Minister for the Civil Service, tell the civil servants who work for the Manpower Services Commission that they are entitled to write to their Member of Parliament if their jobs are threatened? Is she aware that one of my constituents, a Mrs. Joyce Butler, has been told that if she writes to me again, disciplinary action may be taken.

The Prime Minister: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that if that has happened I shall of course inquire into it, if he will give me the details. I have never found that those people, in the Civil Service whom I represent in my constituency do anything other than write to me if they have problems.

Mr. Trippier: In view of the disturbing forecast that unemployment is likely to rise over the next two years, will my right hon. Friend confirm the report of the Manpower Services Commission that the Government will expand the youth opportunities programme so that no child leaving school this year will be without work or training?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend made an announcement the other day about extending many employment

opportunities. It is particularly our intention to help as many young people as we can.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister persuade the Manpower Services Commission to retain the Professional and Executive Register at least until after the next general election, when there should be an upsurge in demand for its services among existing Conservative Members?

The Prime Minister: It may be that even more Labour Members will be looking for a job then.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon Friend to the reply which I gave earlier

Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country welcomes the resolve, expressed in her Airey Neave memorial lecture, to continue dispelling illusions about economic reality? Will she dispel, in particular, the illusion that the nation can afford to pay wages in the public sector in conformity with the rate of inflation? Will she bear that in mind when considering the doctrine of comparability, and any proposals emanating from the Clegg Commission?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that none of us can automatically have pay indexed to inflation, because the country has to earn its keep. If we do not earn it, the pay is not there and the result will be inflation.
With regard to the point on the Clegg Commission, we are still picking up the tab for many pay claims that were referred to Clegg before the last election. The previous Government referred many cases from the public sector to Clegg, and we are honouring the awards that have been made.

Mr. Soley: Did the Prime Minister see the photographs of the recent National Front demonstration, and did she note the age of some of the participants? Some were of about school age. Will she ensure that local education authorities,


such as ILEA, have sufficient funds available, over and above those funds that are already available, to eliminate the threat to the rule of law imposed by racialism?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that if there is any contravention of the law, the matter will be for the police, and if there is any question of public order, the police have powers to deal with it. We have no sympathy with the aims and objectives of the National Front whatsoever.

Mr. Kilfedder: Now that President Carter has apologised to Israel for the United States vote in the United Nations, will the Prime Minister consider this an appropriate time—now that the results of the Zimbabwe elections are known—to demand an apology from the United States for its hostile vote against the United Kingdom when Zimbabwe was being debated in the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: If he looks at the speeches that were made in the Security Council, my hon. Friend will see that the United States told other members of the Security Council that Britain did not need any lessons from the other members on how to conduct free and fair elections. The United States has been very helpful to us in our duties in Rhodesia.

Mr. Dalyell: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her Government's policy of encouraging exports to the Soviet Union with her advice to the British Olympic Committee?

The Prime Minister: The Government's policy on exports to the Soviet Union continues, except in two regards. We should not in any way substitute for the wheat which the United States is not providing, and we should attempt to reduce the amount of technology that we export to the Soviet Union, provided that our partners are prepared to do the same.
With regard to the Olympics, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to continue to hold the Olympics in Moscow would be taken as a tremendous feat of propaganda for the Soviet Government and for the Soviet system. That is something with which we could not possibly agree.

Mr. Rippon: While on the subject of illusions, will the Prime Minister help to dispel the illusion that a 17 per cent.

minimum lending rate helps to contain inflation, and has little or no effect on exchange rates?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, no one could be more anxious to reduce the 17 per cent. interest rate than I am. As he knows, with his expertise, the best and quickest way to do that is for the Government to take less of the supply of money into their own coffers and to borrow less. Therefore we must reduce public spending.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Prime Minister indicate by what rationale the Government are now taking on 1,000 extra staff to check social security fraud—which is officially estimated to cost the United Kingdom less than £4 million a year—when there are only 270 tax fraud staff in the Inland Revenue, and when tax fraud is estimated by the chairman of the Inland Revenue to cost the country between £2,000 million and £3,000 million a year?

The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Government's action in trying to track down fraud has been largely welcomed by the people of the country. As he knows, every time that someone takes money from social security by fraud the amount available for unfortunate people is reduced. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Inland Revenue must have around 79,000 or 80,000 staff, which should be abundant to track down fraud.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Prime Minister accept that the House is disappointed by the decision of the British Olympic athletes not to boycott the Olympic Games? Will she congratulate the British athletes on exercising an option that was denied to the people of Afghanistan?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government can only advise, and people are free to make their own decisions. I do not believe that a final decision has yet been made. A


number of people will delay that decision until the last minute—by which the invitation has to be accepted. I believe that that is much later. However, I hope that there will still be some delay before the final decision.

Mr. Dubs: On several occasions during the last few weeks the Prime Minister has mentioned the right to work. Is there any level of unemployment that the Prime Minister would find unacceptable?

The Prime Minister: The greatest increase in unemployment in this country in the post-war period took place under the previous Government. Unemployment is no part of my policy whatsoever. We shall do everything that we can to see that it does not rise as fast as it did under the previous Government.

RHODESIA (ELECTIONS)

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Rhodesia.
The results of the Common Roll elections held last week were announced this morning. They give Mr. Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party 57 seats, Mr. Nkomo's Patriotic Front party 20 seats and Bishop Muzorewa's UANC party three seats.
In his report to the Governor the Election Commissioner concluded that despite some distortion of voting as a result of intimidation in certain areas the overall result would broadly reflect the wishes of the people.
It has been the virtually unanimous view of the British, Commonwealth and other international observers who witnessed the elections that they were, in the circumstances, free and fair. The exceptionally high turnout provides an indication of the confidence of the Rhodesian people in the conduct of the elections and the secrecy of the vote.
The Government are grateful for the efforts of all those concerned with the organisation of the elections for their unstinting work.
The need now is for national unity and reconciliation. The Governor has seen Mr. Mugabe, as leader of the party with an absolute majority of the seats in the House of Assembly, and asked him to set in train the process of forming a Government that can contribute effectively to these goals.
An important step toward reconciliation and the integration of forces has already been taken with the start of joint training between units of Mr. Mugabe's and Mr. Nkomo's forces and of the Rhodesian Army, under the supervision of British members of the monitoring force.
The growing confidence and contact between the two forces means that the role of the monitoring force is increasingly one of liaison and training, and there will be a phased reduction in its size. The first members will return to the United Kingdom today.
The Government would wish to record once again their thanks to all members of the force for the admirable way in which they carried out their difficult task,


above all in winning the confidence of all sides.
The people of Rhodesia have now made their choice of Government under conditions agreed by all the parties at Lancaster House, who committed themselves to accept the outcome of the election. It is no less important that the other aspects of the Lancaster House agreements reached should be faithfully observed.
The independence constitution, which will shortly come into force, provides safeguards for the minority community and will ensure that it can continue to play its full part in the life of the country.
Britain's task now is to assist in the orderly transfer of power to a stable Government. The Governor will do all that he can to ease the transition and to help overcome whatever problems may arise in the period until independence.

Dr. Owen: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who is in Rhodesia, I warmly welcome the statement by the Lord Privy Seal and fully endorse his view and the view of all independent observers, including hon. Members of this House, that the election was conducted freely and fairly. We congratulate Mr. Mugabe on his victory, the statesmanship that he has shown, and the will with which he has made clear that he wishes to see a united Zimbabwe and is taking steps to ensure the confidence of people of all races and colours in that country.
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I pay tribute to the work of the Foreign Secretary, first in Lusaka and again at Lancaster House, for having made this ceasefire and election possible? We also pay tribute to the invaluable role of the Commonwealth, the soldiers of the Commonwealth monitoring force, who played a crucial role in maintaining the ceasefire, the work of Commonwealth Heads of Government, especially those in Africa, and the Commonwealth Secretary-General.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how long he expects the period to be until independence? I assure him that we accept that the Governor should stay for as long as can be agreed with

the new Government and hope that the decision of Zimbabwe to become a member of the Commonwealth will be recognised by the early appointment of a high commissioner of high standing.
May we have an assurance that everything possible will be done to help with the rehabilitation of refugees, both inside and outside Zimbabwe, and that all technical, administrative and financial assistance will be generously given to the new Government?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the British members of the Commonwealth monitoring force will remain in position for as long as they are needed to carry out the crucial role of integrating the forces?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation of the freeness and fairness of the election, and for the tribute that he paid to my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.
I cannot give an exact answer to the right hon. Member's question about how long the period will be before independence. That will depend on matters beyond our control, such as the actions of Mr. Mugabe in the formation of his Government. The right hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that Mr. Mugabe has asked that the Governor should stay as long as he thinks fit. There will certainly be no rush for him to leave.
As we made clear in the Lancaster House agreements and since, we shall discuss with the new independence Government what assistance will be necessary. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a large number of refugees have already returned and we shall assist in their rehabilitation.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that we on the Liberal Benches consider that the carrying out of these elections without upset was a major success, for which all concerned deserve full credit and congratulations, including the people of Zimbabwe? It was a major success, and no one should detract from that in any way.
Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that the emergence of one party with a clear majority may, at the end of the day, be the best outcome, especially in view of


the doubts being cast by the Government last week about who would be selected to form a Government?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is in the best interests of this country that good relations should be established between our Government and the new Government of Zimbabwe, especially in view of the political differences that exist between them, and that the Governor should stay in Zimbabwe at Mr. Mugabe's request for as long as is reasonable?

Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The holding of free and fair elections in these unprecedented and difficult circumstances, almost at the end of a civil war, was an extraordinary achievement, which reflects enormous credit on the Governor, the monitoring force, the Commonwealth force, the policemen who went out there and everyone concerned with the election arrangements.
It is certainly not for me—it may be right for the House—to express an opinion on the question whether an overall majority for one party was the right result. That was entirely a matter for the people of Zimbabwe, and they have so chosen. Naturally, we want good relations with the new Government. That was implicit throughout the negotiations at Lancaster House and is implicit in the agreements. As I said, the Governor will stay in Zimbabwe until independence. However, immediately independence is declared the Governor must, of necessity, leave.

Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that Mr. Mugabe's victory represents a major defeat for the West? Does he agree that it brings Soviet influence to within a few hundred miles of the mineral resources of South Africa, on which Western and Japanese industry depends? To that extent this victory is comparable, in terms of the danger that it poses, to the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan.
Does my right hon. Friend further recognise that Mr. Mugabe's victory owes much to the systematic destruction of Bishop Muzorewa's authority by the Government, and is it not time now to embark on a total revision of British policy towards Central and Southern Africa?

Mr I. Gilmour: I am afraid that I must disagree with every part of my right hon. Friend's question. To say that free and fair elections are a major defeat for the West is surely not a very Western attitude. It was Mr. Molotov who said that the trouble with free elections was that one could never be sure of the result. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not really agree with that attitude.
On the question of Soviet influence, again I must disagree. I have no evidence at all that Mr. Mugabe is under Soviet influence—quite the contrary in fact. Nor do I see any parallel whatever with Afghanistan. For my right hon. Friend to say that we have gone in for the systematic destruction of Bishop Muzorewa is totally unjustified. Nobody would wish to diminish the part that Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues have played in bringing about majority rule and ending the war in Zimbabwe.
It has always been common ground in this House that the people of Zimbabwe should have the determining say about who should govern them on independence. Hon. Members will recall the leading role that Bishop Muzorewa played at the time of the Pearce Commission and subsequently in the pursuit of genuine majority rule. At long last this has come about, and the whole House will pay tribute to the Bishop's contribution. In view of the very low vote that the UANC received, however, to claim that this was caused by any action of the British Government is a travesty of what took place.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend the congratulations of the Government and this House to Mr. Mugabe on his election victory? In a spirit of reconciliation, will the Government now make two clear commitments—first, to the new Government of Zimbabwe, in that if they require financial help for reconstruction to repair the ravages of war, the British Government will provide it; and, secondly, to Zimbabwe's territorial integrity by telling the South African Government that they will not be allowed to interfere in the future of Zimbabwe?

Sir I. Gilmour: Normally it is customary to send formal congratulations at the time of independence. Of course we congratulate Mr. Mugabe on his victory.
[Interruption]. It is all very well for Labour Members to make animal noises, but we negotiated with Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo and Bishop Muzorewa.
We are prepared to provide various forms of assistance after independence. That remains the position, and of course we shall do what we can to help the new Government.
On the question of South Africa, I honestly do not think that the hon. Member is being very helpful. The South African Prime Minister put out a statement that was perfectly correct in every way, and it is not for the hon. Member to make such remarks.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us at least on the Government Benches would like to congratulate Mr. Mugabe, both on his election victory and on the statesmanlike nature of his victory speech? We welcome the moderate nature of the policies that he has put forward and his decision to join the Commonwealth. May I add my name to the list of those who have already congratulated the Governor, the Foreign Secretary and the whole Foreign Office team on this magnificent achievement?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Mr. Mugabe has made some very encouraging statements today about the need for a broad national Government and the need to inspire national confidence.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I fulfil my promise and congratulate the Lord Privy Seal on bringing about this result? If that makes him feel bad, he should spare a thought for Tiny Rowland's feelings today. Why is it that whenever we get to this stage of post-Imperial hand-over we, and the Foreign Office in particular, fail to make a correct assessment about the indigenous people of the country that we have ruled for so long? Is it not time that the Foreign Office changed its way of assessing public opinion in the Third world so that it goes to the people concerned and not to the white Establishment?

Sir I. Gilmour: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that I would have welcomed the results of free and fair elections whatever they were,

and I do not think that he would have done so. As for his remarks about the Foreign Office not being aware of the views of people whom we have ruled for so long, I must point out that we have not ruled Rhodesia since 1921, so it is not surprising that the Foreign Office should not be so well aware.

Sir Ronald Bell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that real elections in Africa, with universal suffrage, are an illusion? Will he say whether his Department is still living in a dreamland of Kenyattas after it has just forged another Nyerere, or worse?

Sir I. Gilmour: My hon. and learned Friend refuses to recognise the facts. There is overwhelming evidence that these elections were free and fair. My hon. and learned Friend was not there. The elections may be an illusion to him, but they were a reality to everyone else. Certainly I agree that free elections in Africa are rare, and therefore I think that some of the Commonwealth Governments who criticised us in the run-up to the elections should do some re-thinking.

Mr. Concannon: The Lord Privy Seal has had his share of accolades today, but will he not accept that there are others who should share the praises? Those are the people who made the elections possible—the British Election Commission, which did an absolutely excellent job in the administration of the election; those Government officers of all the cities and towns, who were in a very tricky situation and came out of it well; and whoever thought of that stroke of genius of sending out our policemen. No one trusted anyone, but as soon as the policemen went out there they clearly inspired confidence in the secrecy of the vote, which was particularly important.
No praise is too high for the Commonwealth monitoring force. It had a difficult job to do in unpredictable circumstances. It had to monitor and assemble over 22,000 guerrillas in camps. It did so without a shot being fired. It was ably led by Major General Acland and his staff. Our praise should go out to them all.

Sir, I. Gilmour: The House will be aware that the right hon. Gentleman has just come back from Rhodesia. He therefore speaks with great authority. I am most grateful to him for his remarks. I


agree that no praise is too high for all those involved in keeping the ceasefire and in organising the elections. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rippon: With the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), I was a member of the parliamentary delegation that observed the elections. I associate myself with all that he said by way of tribute to the Election Commissioner, local government officers, monitoring forces and others who have done so much to inspire confidence in Zimbabwe and Britain about the manner in which the elections were conducted.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that before the results were declared all members of the delegation were satisfied that they would represent a fair expression of the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe, despite a degree of intimidation that was not wholly one-sided? I associate myself also with the tributes that have been paid to the Governor. He has done a magnificent job in difficult and unpredictable circumstances. However, will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more precisely when independence day will be? Does he agree that the sooner the Governor is replaced by a high commissioner the better?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He has spoken with authority about the conduct of the elections and their freeness and fairness. It cannot be repeated too often that enormous credit is reflected on all those who took part. I am sorry that I cannot give a specific answer to the second part of my right hon. and learned Friend's question. It is too early to give an exact date for independence. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Soames invited Mr. Mugabe to form a Government only this morning. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, the formation of the Senate and the election of a president will follow. I cannot, therefore, give an exact date for independence. I shall not go all the way with my right hon. and learned Friend in saying "the sooner the better". This issue should not be rushed, although clearly there should be no undue delay.

Miss Joan Lestor: I wish to underline the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr.

Rippon). It is important to place on record that all members of the parliamentary group of observers stated that the elections were free and fair before the result was known and before the first vote had been cast. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) stated that he was interested in free and fair elections. Will the Lord Privy Seal consider withdrawing his slight upon my hon. Friend concerning his attitude? Will he also answer the question put to him previously? There has been tremendous devastation in Zimbabwe. Many refugees have not yet returned. Those who were previously fighting in the bush but who are now in camps need retraining. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be more forthcoming about the amount of aid to be given? A proper rehabilitation programme is needed.

Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks concerning the conduct of the elections. However, as to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and myself, there is not much chance of either of us withdrawing anything that we say to each other. I have nothing more to add on the question of aid. Nothing more can be said until the new independence Government have been formed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to prejudge any actions of the new Government in Zimbabwe? Many people were wrong to prejudge the actions of my right hon. Friend's Government when they came into power. I say that in the interests of the people of Zimbabwe - Rhodesia. Will it be possible to build on the success of those free and fair elections and to achieve the same type of elections in other countries in Africa? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we might start with Angola, where a similar guerrilla war continues? Hopefully, free and fair elections could be extended to many other countries that have not seen such elections for a long time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Like South Africa.

Sir I. Gilmour: It is premature to judge the new Government. No Government have as yet been formed. We do not know who will be included. I commend to the House the attitude of my right hon. and


noble Friend Lord Home. To seek to produce free elections in other countries is a noble ambition, which, I do not wish to pursue at present.

Mr. Faulds: I most warmly congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his minions here below on the extraordinary and unexpected success of the whole operation. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that Mr. Mugabe's clear success is the best guarantee of Western interests in Southern Africa and the best guarantee for the future of the white citizens of Zimbabwe? Further, to what extent will the Governor continue to have executive powers, particularly as regards the Southern Rhodesian security forces?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am not sure that I agree that the election has been an "unexpected success". Throughout the Lancaster House agreements and during many debates last year we said that we were confident that we would be able to organise free and fair elections. It is not for me or, with respect, this House to say what the result of this election will mean to other people. We know only that this is the unequivocable verdict of the Rhodesian people. We cannot go any further than that.

Mr. Faulds: What about the powers of the Governor?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir I. Gilmour: The executive power of the Governor will last as long as he is Governor—that is, until the day of independence.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call four more hon. Members from either side. That will provide a very good run indeed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will it not be in keeping with the interests of Rhodesia and with the traditions of this House if we look to the future and not to the past? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Mr. Mugabe will be welcome in London whenever he wishes to come here? I hope that Mr. Mugabe will go down the path of Kenyatta and of Makarios and not down that of Castro or Nyerere. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that trade between Britain and Rhodesia will be encouraged in every respect? Will he confirm that we will

ensure that pensioners are looked after? Finally, does he agree that we should encourage Rhodesia and South Africa to come as close together as possible?

Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we should look to the future. We shall do everything possible to foster good relations between Zimbabwe and Britain. If Mr. Mugabe wishes to visit this country he will be warmly welcomed. I think that he feels that he spent quite a lot of time in Britain last autumn. He may not wish to come back so quickly.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of pensioners was discussed at Lancaster House. An agreement was reached. We cannot go any further than that.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that the vast majority of hon. Members wish to add their congratulations and that they side with him in his dispute with a certain element, namely, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)? Does he agree that any danger of Russian influence infiltrating the Government and people of Zimbabwe will come only from an attempt to destabilise the Government of Zimbabwe by South Africa, or any other country that has boundaries with Zimbabwe?

Sir I. Gilmour: Of course, any attempt to destabilise the new Government would be deplorable, but there has been no suggestion of that and I hope that the House will not make any such suggestion.

Mr. Wall: I congratulate all concerned on the conduct of the election, but will my right hon. Friend say what proposals the Government have for safeguarding the future and pensions of the security forces and the Civil Service in Zimbabwe?

Sir I. Gilmour: My hon. Friend will be aware that that was discussed and decided at the Lancaster House conference. He will also be aware of the statesmanlike statement that General Walls made last night. He said:
We are not going to allow jealousy or old hatreds or bitterness to affect our actions. We will be looking forward in a spirit of reconciliation to maintaining law and order.
That statement sums up the position better than anything that I can say.

Mr. Newens: In view of the dismay expressed over the election results by some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, will he make clear to the House that the Government will be no less forthcoming with offers of aid and other assistance to a Government led by Robert Mugabe than they would have been had Bishop Muzorewa been the victor in the election?

Sir I. Gilmour: I have already answered four questions on aid to Zimbabwe. My answer remains the same, and I hope that it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brotherton: Will my right hon. Friend accept that a victory by the Marxists, regardless of how the elections in Rhodesia were conducted, can hardly be described as favourable to the West? On reflection, does he agree that the Bishop is entitled to feel a betrayed and disillusioned man? In view of the pending proximity of a Marxist State to South Africa, will my right hon. Friend have discussion with the South African authorities with a view to defending our interests and particularly the trade route around the Cape?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not believe that it is a great asset to clear thought to tie labels on people or States. As I said earlier, we do not yet know the exact formation of the Government. To call it a Marxist Government appears to be totally fallacious.
I frankly do not know what my hon. Friend means when he says that we betrayed the bishop. We provided free and fair elections. I have already expressed my admiration for the bishop and the gratitude of the House for the way that he behaved. The fact that he lost the election can hardly mean that we betrayed him.
As to the trade routes around South Africa, my hon. Friend will be aware that Rhodesia is landlocked.

Mr. Spearing: Reverting to the question of financial aid on which the Lord Privy Seal has been a little reticent, does he agree that due to the privations of war rural areas will need immediate assistance? In view of the Government's

cuts in the overseas aid budget, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that aid to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, particularly the rural areas, will be outside the current aid budget?

Sir I. Gilmour: No, I cannot confirm that. When the aid budget was drawn up we were aware of the likely need for aid to Zimbabwe, but I am afraid that I can say no more than that. I have already given undertakings to the House.

Mr. Peter Mills: While congratulating my right hon. Friend and the Government and not forgetting the good West Country general in charge of the monitoring force, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will back up the achievement with a programme of aid and encouragement to get Zimbabwe-Rhodesia under way again? Will he also encourage other countries to give it a fair wind? It needs time to settle down and get on with its business.

Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have already stated our position on aid. My hon. Friend will be aware that Commissioner Cheysson has been very helpful about European Community aid to Rhodesia. We shall certainly encourage our friends, allies and all other countries to help in that endeavour.

Mr. McNally: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most daunting tasks facing the new Government in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia will be to integrate the various armies? Given that members of the British forces have built up a degree of good will over the past weeks and months, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that should the new Government need technical and military assistance, particularly with training and integration, it will be fully and freely given?

Sir I. Gilmour: As I said in my statement, a start has been made. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an extremely important matter. I have suggested that some of the liaison team will stay on for a bit. Anything else must be subject to conversations and agreements between the Governor and the new Government of Zimbabwe.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INVALID DIRECTION)

Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by Mr. Attorney-General, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, and Sir George Young presented a Bill to give temporary effect to an instrument purporting to be a direction given by the Secretary of State for Social Services: And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second Time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 155].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Constitution of Zimbabwe) (Elections and Appointments) (Amendment) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 243) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business), if proceeding on the Motions relating to Review Body on Top Salaries, Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance, Car Mileage Allowances for Members' Spouses and Grants for Former Members have not been disposed of by Ten o'clock, any amendments to the first Motion which have been selected by Mr. Speaker may thereupon be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed forthwith to put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 67 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland) shall apply to proceedings on the Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Bill with the substitution of the words 'Committee of the whole House' for the words Scottish Standing Committee' in paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Ordered,
That, if the Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) [Money] have been concluded this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Waddington.]

GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND (SCOTTISH CONVENTION)

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On this auspicious day, when the Pax Britannica has brought successful free elections to Zimbabwe, I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an elected Convention in Scotland; to enable the Convention to draw up proposals for the government of Scotland by an elected Assembly; and to make provision for a referendum and implementation of the proposals in the event of an affirmative vote.
Last year a referendum took place in which 1,230,937 Scots voted in favour of a Scottish Assembly. It was a narrow but clear majority for those in favour of the principle of an elected legislature and executive Government in Scotland, with the Executive responsible to the legislature.
Since then the subject has been dormant, but in recent weeks and months public attention has been drawn once again to the issue. That is doubtless partly due to the inadequate agenda produced by the Government to deal with the issues raised last year. A recent BBC television opinion poll showed that there is now a higher level of support for the legislative Assembly and the Executive than last year.
I do not pretend that the package, as framed, was without warts or blemish. My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), myself and the Scottish National Party had many reservations about the powers contained in the constitutional package. We felt then, and feel now, that it was too weak and that it would have no influence over universities, industry or commerce. We feel that it would have no sources of finance and, above all, no access to Scottish oil revenues. Indeed, had the powers provided in the Act equalled the maximalist proposals in the Northern Ireland White Paper published a few months ago, I believe that they would have merited much greater support than the package put forward by the previous Government in the referendum. The SNP has always sought full self-government for Scotland, and is disappointed by the powers that would have been given to the Assembly.
We accept, as must the unionists and others with different views, that the


referendum vote cannot be ignored and treated as if it did not exist. Had a "No" vote been recorded by a narrow majority, the House would have been more ready to recognise that something remained to be done. As the majority voted "Yes", it has been almost entirely discounted.
The Scottish people voted "Yes" for the principle of control by an elected legislature and Executive, even if the powers and limits were open to debate. We must accept that there was a majority vote cast by a nation whose prime constitutional base was always the sovereignty of the people rather than that of the Crown or Parliament. Indeed, Scottish constitutional law takes a different stand on this matter from that of the kingdom of England. That sovereignty is undiminished by the 40 per cent. rule, an innovation that was completely unknown in the Western democratic world. That was imposed by the House—as it was entitled to be—against the will of the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament. That sovereignty is unaffected by the repeal of the Scotland Act last summer—against the wishes of the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament.
That fact was recognised by Lord Home of the Hirsel, who said on 24 February 1979, in an article in the Scottish Daily Express, that regardless of the outcome of the referendum, particularly if it were "No", the issue should remain top of the political agenda. That was echoed by the Prime Minister on 28 February 1979, when she said that a "No" vote would not mean that the question would be buried.
In view of the events of recent months, especially the repeal of the Scotland Act, the previous devolution package is dead. It was repealed. However, the " Yes " vote—the majority vote in the referendum —and the assurances given by the Prime Minister and Lord Home of the Hirsel still remain and should be attended to.
It was scandalous that the Government gave in to IRA pressure by producing a White Paper on Northern Ireland that proposed a substantial legislative and Executive power but ignored the clear democratic mandate that the Scots cast In free and fair elections and the referendum. In view of today's events—the results of the Zimbabwe election have

come through—we should underline the importance of the free vote in the referendum.
In spite of the dormant period, this issue has not gone away. Politics is a dynamic business. The short, temporary breathing space will not last long.
How do we tackle the problem? We can await the return of the Scottish National Party in strength. A challenge was laid down by the House. I willingly take it up. I assure the House that events will flow our way. The House has the option, on the anniversary of the referendum, to consider this Bill in view of the democratic majority. I stress that point.
I suggest in the Bill that there should be a Scottish Convention—a body elected by proportional representation in line with the single-Member constituencies and party list system advanced by the late John Mackintosh, a respected Member of this House, in an amendment to the Scotland Bill. The Convention would have the task of working out the constitution and powers of an assembly or parliamentary body in Scotland and reporting the outcome to the Government. The Bill does not lay down the methods of approach of the Convention. Indeed, the Convention would be open-ended in that direction, subject to the will of the Scottish people and the elections to it. It would not be unreasonable for the Convention to use the recently published White Paper on Northern Ireland as a starting point, as it contains a set of model proposals acceptable to the Government encompassing industrial and commerial power. That power must be returned to Scotland in view of growing unemployment.
When the Convention reports, the recommendations will be sent to the Secretary of State for submission to the Cabinet. By negotiation with the Convention, the constitutional package may then be agreed. We have experience of what can be done if the Government of the United Kingdom turn their attention, as in the case of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, to a difficult situation.
In the event of agreement being reached on the package, that could go before the Scottish people by means of a referendum, to get their backing. In the event of a "Yes" vote being achieved in that referendum, the proposals could be placed


before Parliament under the Order in Council procedure for approval by affirmative resolution of each House.
On the anniversary of the referendum, this Bill represents a new initiative. It brings the issue of Scottish government back home where it belongs. It will allow the Scottish representatives to argue out their various viewpoints to achieve a Parliament whose powers will be more workable than the Scottish Assembly mark I, which came before us last year.

Mr. Iain Sproat: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has at this time and in this way tried to revive the corpse of a Scottish Assembly. It is only one year since the Scottish people made clear beyond any doubt that they did not support the concept of a Scottish Assembly. The members of the Scottish National Party may not like that fact, but it is the truth. It is clear that only one-third of the Scottish electorate was persuaded to vote in favour of that Assembly; one-third was persuaded to vote against. The key fact, which the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention, is that time after time the supporters of the Assembly said to the electors "If you do not vote in this referendum, that will count as a 'No' vote". In the rough weather of last February and March, many elderly people in particular found that not voting was the best way to register their opposition to a Scottish Assembly. The referendum made that quite clear.
The second reason for my surprise is that we know what happened to the Scottish National Party at the last election. Its members came forward with even further advanced ideas. They were absolutely massacred at the polls. The fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East has only one right hon. Friend on the Bench beside him proves that. It is even more surprising that the hon. Gentleman should seek to revive the corpse of the Assembly. At its last party conference the Scottish National Party agreed

by an overwhelming majority to have no future dealings with any Assembly or with devolution.
The third reason for my surprise is that talks are now going on in this House to discover whether there is some way in which the procedures of the government of Scotland can be improved. [Interruption.] The Opposition may not like those talks, but they are certainly going on. If anybody wants to know how serious is the Scottish National Party about wanting to improve the government of Scotland, there is an answer in the fact that it refused even to take part in those talks. That shows how shallow is its commitment to improving the government of Scotland.
At this stage I do not want to go through all the arguments that arise naturally out of what the hon. Gentleman proposes. A strong argument against a Convention leading to an Assembly is the fact that it would lead to more government when we want less and to more bureaucracy when we want less, and therefore to more expenditure and taxation, when we all want less taxation and expenditure, especially on bureaucrats.
The hon. Gentleman made no attempt to answer the fundamental constitutional point that arose time after time in the House. We cannot have a British constitution under which Scottish Members of Parliament have a right to legislate on education, health, and roads for parts of England, whereas Members of Parliament representing English seats do not have the right to do that for Scotland. That difficulty would arise as a result of the Assembly that the hon. Gentleman proposes. That would be constitutionally unfair and divisive.
I ask Parliament to consider from where this suggestion comes. It comes from the party in this House that is dedicated to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Indeed only on Saturday the hon. Member's election agent inserted in a local newspaper a little tombstone message, which said:
Now it is independence, nothing less".
We can therefore draw no other conclusion than that the hon. Member's frivolous gambit today is designed to lead this House not, as he says, to an Assembly, but even further down the


road. He wants independence, and he sees this as the first step towards the break-up of Britain. Whatever be the arguments of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this matter, I hope that they will agree, no matter what they may want in terms of constitutional reform in this country, that this Bill is certainly no way to go about constitutional reform.

I hope that the House will vote overwhelmingly to throw it out.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 200.

Division No. 210]
AYES
[4.20 pm


Alton, David
Home Robertson, John
Torney, Tom


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Kilfedder, James A.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lambie, David



Canavan, Dennis
Penhallgon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. D. E. Thomas and


Foulkes, George
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Flsher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard


Alexander, Richard
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lyell, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCusker, H.


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marlow, Tony


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mather, Carol


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mellor, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gow, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Bowden, Andrew
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger


Brittan, Leon
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Molyneaux, James


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Moore, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Myles, David


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hastings, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Channon, Paul
Heddle, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hooson, Tom
Patten, John (Oxford)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Pollock, Alexander


Cope, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Cryer, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Dover, Denshore
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rossi, Hugh


Elliott, Sir William
Lee, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael




Silvester, Fred
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Wheeler, John


Speller, Tony
Trippier, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stainton, Keith
Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Raymond


Stanley, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Martin
Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wakeham, John
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, John
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek



Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Iain Sproat and


Thompson, Donald
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. John Mackay.

Question accordingly negatived.

REVIEW BODY ON TOP SALARIES (REPORT)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to move his motion, I will explain the course that we shall follow in the light of the business motion to which the House earlier agreed.
The debate on the first of the four motions before the House may continue until 10 o'clock. During the course of that debate it will be open to any right hon. or hon. Member to discuss all the other motions and amendments which stand on the Order Paper. It will be one broad debate.
At 10 o'clock or at an earlier conclusion of the debate, I shall call upon hon. Members to move formally any amendments to the first motion which are shown on the selection list. When any such amendments have been disposed of, I shall put the main Question or the main Question as amended.
I shall then call upon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to move formally his second motion. When he has done so, hon. Members whose amendments to the motion have been selected will be invited successively to move them formally. When those amendments have been disposed of, the main Question as amended or unamended will be put.
There are no amendments to the Chancellor's third motion, so I shall call upon him to move it formally and put the Question on it.
On the Chancellor's fourth motion, to which there is one amendment which I have selected, the procedure will be the same as on the second motion.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Thirteenth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries [Cmnd. 7825].
The programme for reform of the House of Commons is a continuing programme and the purpose is clear. It is not to assert the right of the House to govern. Historically, save for a brief and disastrous period in the seventeenth

century, the House has never made out a claim to govern. Parliament's function has been not executive but supervisory. It has sought to subject the Executive to certain limitations and controls, to protect the liberty of the individual citizen against the arbitrary use of power, to focus the mind of the nation on the great issues of the day by the maintenance of continuous dialogue or discussion and, by remaining at the centre of the stage, to impose parliamentary conventions or manners on the whole of our system.
The Government came to power on a clear economic programme, but economics, the dismal science, is not the subject of our debate today. Economics is subject to as many variables and is just as unpredictable as another science, psychiatry.
A clear undertaking of parliamentary reform was made in the election manifesto. We have come to the House with successive instalments on which the House has made a decision. The first and most important was the new system of parliamentary Select Committees, now well into their stride and making a major impact on all our parliamentary procedures. They have already fully justified the faith of those who saw them as a major means of reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament and the central constitutional importance of the House of Commons.
The second instalment of reform was to rectify the scandalously low level of parliamentary salaries. They had fallen so far behind as to justify the description not of top salaries but rather of bottom salaries. We have now ensured that the basic salary for a Member of Parliament, if not generous, is adequate. It enables a Member if he so wishes to devote all his time to the House without reducing himself or herself to need and families to want.
This year the updating of the second-stage payment by the Review Body on Top Salaries has been accepted in advance by the Government, and the Government are committed to implementing the updating from this summer. That also will be applied to the third stage of the payment.
Furthermore, we propose that the review body undertakes annual reviews of


parliamentary salaries from next year onwards. It is the Government's firm intention, save in the most exceptional circumstances, that any recommendations made by the review body will be implemented. I believe that this method rather than indexing is the right way to approach the problem. In the prevailing economic situation, I do not believe that the indexing of Members' salaries is a viable political option.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Leader of the House said that save in most exceptional circumstances the Government will refrain from interfering with the periodic upratings. What does he mean by "the most exceptional circumstances"? Does he mean a change of policy on incomes policy generally?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is unreasonable to ask me to go into details about that reservation. It is no less and no more than a firm statement of Government intention to implement the review body's recommendation, with the saving that there may be very exceptional circumstances in which that is not possible. That is a reservation which any Government have to make, and hon. Members should not read into it more than that.
The third area where improvement is necessary—

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Leader of the House said that there would be two upratings on the 1979 prices. Will there be any allowance for inflation at 1980 or 1981 prices?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the matter for the Boyle committee to decide. My commitment and that of the Government is that the first of those upratings which will take place in the summer of this year, whatever the Boyle committee recommends—obviously the Boyle committee will take inflation into account—will be implemented by the Government.
The third area where improvement is necessary is in the services which hon. Members draw on to do their work of serving their fellow citizens. It is these, in the main, that are the subject of the latest Boyle report and that are the major, but not the only, subject of our debate today.
That is the setting in which we are considering the motions, which give effect to the proposals I made last month concerning the thirteenth report from the Review Body on Top Salaries relating to Members' pay and allowances. There is a general "take note" motion enabling us to debate all aspects of the report's recommendations and conclusions. Before turning in more detail to the motion, I should like to comment on some of the points that hon. Members have raised.
I know that some hon. Members feel that the recommendations for a revised secretarial allowance of £5,500 and a new research assistant's allowance of £1,250 are not generous enough [AN HON. MEMBER: "Peanuts."] They are not peanuts. They may not be excessively generous, but they could not be described as peanuts. That is a ridiculous remark. The review body believes that the recommended levels are adequate. The Government accept that view. They may not be generous but they are certainly not peanuts. They are a considerable improvement on existing arrangements.
When I originally announced the Government's proposals to the House on 14 February, I accepted that there should be two separate allowances—one for secretarial and the other for research purposes. Although I suggested there should be flexibility between the two, I have since had strong representations from hon. Members that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members that these sums should be merged and that one allowance should be applied for both these purposes at the discretion of hon. Members. I believe that there is much in those representations. I have accordingly tabled a motion that gives effect to the wishes of hon. Members in that respect.
As I said in my last statement on the subject, the Government do not believe that it would be right to make it obligatory that hon. Members should have their secretaries paid directly by the Fees Office, as the review body suggests and as the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) suggested in the past. I would, however, strongly urge hon. Members to adopt that method of payment. The Fees Office agency scheme can operate only for secretaries


who are subject to PAYE and class 1 national insurance contributions. I should like to assure hon. Members that it is not the Government's intention to place any restriction on the conditions of service that can be agreed between an hon. Member and those he employs.
As hon. Members know, there are wide variations in the secretarial arrangements made between individual Members and their secretaries. We believe that it is vital to preserve the maximum flexibility in this regard.
The suggestion is also made in the report that the House might wish to reconsider the question of secretaries being employees of the House rather than of hon. Members. I am sure that hon. Members will wish during the debate to comment on this suggestion. I am aware that many hon. Members feel that they should remain their secretary's employer. That is also a view shared by many secretaries, who have represented their views to me. I am also not unaware of the problem that the House authorities would face as the new employer. They would find it difficult to accept responsibility for the management and perhaps the careers of staff they had no part in choosing. There would be occasions when the reallocation of a secretary due to a Member's departure from the House could be difficult. For these reasons, the Government view is that secretaries should remain the employees of individual Members.
I know from what has been said to me that many hon. Members would have liked specific provisions to be made for pensions and severance pay for their secretaries. Personally, I have considerable sympathy with that point of view. The review body examined these questions with a certain amount of care but felt unable to recommend their introduction.
The review body considered, on pensions, that it would be inappropriate to make specific provisions within the allowance for the additional cost of contributing to an occupational pension scheme outside the State scheme. The cost, it said, was likely to vary and no yardstick was available to assess the extent to which these costs would be reasonable.
I might point out, however, that secretaries are included within the State scheme and the revised allowance takes

account of the last increase in the employer's contribution. The benefits provided by the State scheme are not ungenerous. I give the House an example. On maturity of the scheme, anyone who has contributed for 20 years will receive, on retirement, a pension of approximately 50 per cent. of salary, taking the basic pension and the earnings-related pension together.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that an hon. Member who is not subsidising his secretary's salary out of his own pocket must, if his secretary is gaining the benefit that the right hon. Gentleman has described, pay her 131 per cent. less than the maximum allowance? That represents a considerable restraint on the salary that can be paid to secretaries.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That could be one case that would arise. It does not arise in every case. Not all hon. Members, for example, have a full-time secretary. It would be possible in such a case for a full proportion of the allowance to be paid, plus the 13½ per cent., plus some kind of pension allowance within the total allowance. While the hon. Gentleman is stating part of the truth, it is not the whole truth.
The review body also carefully considered whether some form of severance payment should be available to secretaries over and above the State redundancy pay provisions. It concluded that this would not be appropriate for a variety of reasons. These are the reasons of the review body. They are not mine or those of the Government. The report states:
It would add an additional cost without any commensurate benefit in the deployment of staff such as is achieved by the House authorities. It would be wrong to provide a fixed allowance to all Members irrespective of need; but it would also be difficult for any central authority such as the Fees Office to adjudicate on need.
The report also states that it would be inappropriate to increase the maximum of the secretarial allowance that is expressed as an annual limit
to provide for some possible future expenditure that may never be incurred.
It is often argued that the same payment should be made to secretaries as to Members of Parliament. But the point must be remembered that hon. Members


are not covered by the State redundancy provisions. Those are the arguments of the report. Those are the reasons for its recommendations.
I turn now to the pensions recommendations. In the exchange of views that took place three weeks ago, hon. Members expressed concern over the position of those who left the House before 1964. I am equally concerned. I feel, however, that the review body has come to the right conclusions in suggesting the use of the Members' fund to provide benefit.
I shall come to the issue of severance pay and spouses' travel in explaining the motions in a moment. I should like to make clear, once again, where the Government stand on the recommendation that all Members' travel within the United Kingdom should be free. The Government accept that hon. Members might be better able to inform themselves on their work and carry out their duties more effectively if they had greater assistance with travel costs. However, we feel unable to propose acceptance of the recommendation at present because of the potentially high costs involved.

Mr. Eric Ogden: If the Leader of the House is not able to go all the way on the recommendations, will he widen the scope of the definition of a Government Department? Recently I visited Preston prison to meet two constituents who were in dire circumstances. I claimed my travel allowance from the Fees Office but I was told that Preston prison was not regarded as a Government Department. That means that I can go to Swansea to talk about a constituent's driving licence and claim my travel allowance but I cannot claim if I go to Preston to discuss more important matters.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a reasonable argument. The principle is that genuine travel on parliamentary business should be reimbursed, if possible within the parameters of Government Departments. I shall be glad, as Leader of the House, to take up cases such as that referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden).
The second motion gives effect to the change in the secretarial allowance that I have already outlined. We propose

that the effective date should be 14 February. That date has nothing to do with St. Valentine; it is the date on which the Government proposals were first put to the House. As previously, the amounts quoted in the motion are limits within which expenses actually incurred may be reimbursed. The two allowances have been merged. That recognises that the roles of a secretary, a personal assistant and a research assistant, while they may be divided in theory for purposes of methodology, in practice may overlap. Many hon. Members' secretaries are also personal assistants who, in helping hon. Members to deal with the ever-growing volume of paper which threatens to engulf us all, are an increasing feature of parliamentary life. These persons may also undertake some of the tasks normally associated with a research assistant. However—and I put it no higher than this—hon. Members may wish to be guided by the recommendations in the Boyle report on the general level of expenditure in the two areas of activity.

Mr. George Cunningham: The last remarks by the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he is encouraging hon. Members to limit expenditure on research assistants to £1,250 a year. If an hon. Member did that, he would impose upon himself a limit which is not imposed at present because now he is free to spend about £4,500 a year on research. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his advice?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a mild piece of advice hedged by various caveats. Of course, hon. Members are absolutely free to reject that advice. I put it forward as a possibility. It has almost faded away in its phraseology. The practical effect is that hon. Members must be free to decide on the distribution of the allowance according to their individual needs.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman come out from behind his caveats a little more? Does he agree that if we accept the spirit and the letter of the Boyle recommendation, as he has done so tepidly, we are saying that it is not right for an hon. Member to employ a full-time research assistant unless such a person can be found for a salary of £20 a week?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not believe that that conclusion flows from the premise. The allowance represents an improvement. Many hon. Members would not know what to do with a research assistant if they had one. To some a research assistant would be an encumbrance rather than an aid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] I do speak for myself. When I had a research assistant, one of my great problems was to find that assistant something to do all the time. It was a continual worry that I could not keep the assistant fully occupied. Hon. Members have different views. The allowances are to be amalgamated and hon. Members must judge how they use them.
The third motion gives effect to a change in the arrangement for hon. Members' spouses' travel. I did not describe that recommendation in detail in my previous announcement. The recommendation is that spouses should be able to claim car mileage allowance as an alternative to using rail vouchers for their limited number of free journeys to Westminster. I am sure that this will be convenient for many hon. Members.
The final motion implements the improvements to hon. Members' severance pay scheme. Under the new arrangements hon. Members over 50 years of age who have served in the House for more than 10 years will, when they lose their seats, receive a higher severance payment. The amount will vary according to the scale set out in the motion, which is the scale in the Boyle report. Hon. Members will see that the maximum payment for those in the age range 55 to 64 and who have served for 15 years or more is 50 per cent. of salary.
I turn to the issues raised in the amendments about linkage. The review body has considered the matter carefully once more. It has concluded that linkage is inappropriate for hon. Members' salary. It found that there is no similarity between the functions and responsibilities of any professional group and those of hon. Members. Most hon. Members will accept that our work is unique. Even if a suitable link could be found, the sensitivity currently attached to hon. Members' pay might be transferred to the analogue.
The alternative is a link with general indices, but that would provide guaranteed

salary inflation proofing which the majority of our constituents do not have. No Government could put forward such a proposal in today's economic conditions. For those reasons, I am sure that we should accept the review body's recommendation that regular, independent review remains the best way of dealing with parliamentary pay.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There seems to be an inconsistency in the report between the assertion that there is no similarity between our job and any other and the argument about severance pay and pensions. The review body says that it is inappropriate for us to take for ourselves conditions which are different from those in other occupations. Either we are the same and there should be linkage, or we are not the same and we should have special provision for pensions and severance pay.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting and logical argument. However, it is not my job to explain the working of Lord Boyle's mind. I am here to give the Government's view of the recommendations. Whether consistent or logical, a simple political fact of life is that it is impossible at this time to recommend that Members of Parliament should have an index-linked salary when all the pressure is the other way and when there is widespread dissatisfaction with the index linking of existing pensions.

Mr. David Price: Will my right hon. Friend detach the linking of hon. Members' pensions from the public service to which reference has been made by Lord Boyle and his colleagues? We come to this place later in life than those who join the Civil Service, but Lord Boyle stilll insists upon applying the same rules to hon. Members as to civil servants. It seems that Lord Boyle and his colleagues want it both ways. He cannot link our pension allowances directly with the public service while rejecting that linkage on our salaries. It must be one or the other. I agree with my right hon. Friend, but let us detach the pension problem from the public service.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: One beneficial side effect of the linking with the public service is that Members of Parliament's pensions are guarded against inflation. I do not know whether my hon. Friend


is suggesting that that linkage should be broken.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that there are reasons for dissatisfaction with the existing pension scheme, especially because in order to draw the full pension a Member has to serve 40 years in the House, which although possible for some is not possible for all Members. No amendments on that subject have been placed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Michael English: It is difficult to table an amendment when the Boyle recommendation was negative. We are discussing a take-note motion, and I know that one could have expressed a feeling if one had wished to do so.
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the extraordinary inaccuracy in page 12, paragraph 43, of the Boyle report, from which it is quite clear that Lord Boyle and his review board were not aware of the judges' pension rules? The accrual rate for judges is 15 years, because judges come into office late in their careers—in some cases too late. I am not suggesting that our service need be as short as that. However, it is clear that the average person does not come into the House in his early twenties and remain for 40 years.
A pension which is based on that assumption is false. It holds out the belief that we receive a certain pension, when quite clearly the average Member and his wife, widow or children will never receive such a pension. I know that the right hon. Gentleman could not implement my suggestion on this occasion, but I hope that he will take it away, allow himself 12 months' thought on the matter, and compare our pension scheme with the judges' pension scheme. He could then correct what is clearly a total omission by Lord Boyle, who knew only of the police and the fire service and was not aware of the judges' pension rules.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must leave the hon. Gentleman to catch out Lord Boyle, if that is what he wishes to do. I cannot believe that it was beyond the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman to have phrased an amendment had he so wished. After all, the hon. Gentleman is the greatest living authority on amending the procedures

of the House. I regret that his talent has not been recognised by the Opposition.
With regard to the question of Members' pensions, to get a fair picture of the position hon. Members should take into account that it is possible to bring in pension rights from a previous occupation and to have them incorporated in the scheme. That is an important concession.
I turn to the question of severance pay for Members. The change in the arrangement recommended by the review body is an improvement on the existing arrangements. It was made after careful consideration. The present severance payments for Members are, in general, reasonable. They are more advantageous in many cases than the age and service related payments that would be available to those of similar age and service under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
I accept that they may not be as advantageous as some of those available elsewhere, but I do not think that it would be right, at the present time, to go beyond the review body's recommendations.
I am not unsympathetic towards the problems that a Member might face when, as a good employer, he wishes to pay his secretary through a prolonged period of sickness but finds that he has to pay also for his secretarial work to be done. However, I do not think that it would be right to increase the secretarial allowance to cover all possible unforeseen eventualities. One can get into a position when one is almost neurotic about these matters, trying to find every sort of difficulty, calamity or disaster that might strike and insure against it. We cannot do that. We can make a general provision, but we cannot deal with every detailed case. We should accept the review body's recommendation, although these important matters can be drawn to the attention of the review body at the next review.
Another amendment seeks the automatic adjustment of secretarial allowance to take account of any increase in employer's national insurance contributions The review body takes that into account, and regular review of the secretarial allowance would be the right course to follow and would meet that difficulty.
As to provision of general office equipment, when any review has taken place there are always items that some Members would have wished to see recommended. However, I do not think that it would be right, in the present economic climate, to go beyond the carefully considered recommendation of the review body. I will, however, ensure that that question is kept under review for the future.
I do not claim that the proposals that the Government are placing before the House are perfect. Nor are they the last word on the matter. The ultimate decision on these matters, as I have stressed before, is a matter for the House. In the nature of things, there cannot be a last word on these questions; they have to be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances.
Nevertheless, I believe that they amount to a substantial improvement in the position of Members and their efficiency in discharging their duties. At a time when the whole nation is having to make economic sacrifices, I believe that the proposals strike a fair balance between the needs of Parliament and the condition of the nation. Accordingly, I commend them to the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: In each of the last few years we have had one debate of this sort, normally in July, dealing with Members' salaries and all the allowances that are mentioned in the report before us. I take it that this year we shall have to undergo two such debates, although I hope that the second one will be rather brief. We are not dealing today with the immediate issue of what happens to Members' salaries this year. I hope that at a later stage in the debate the Leader of the House will tell us how he intends to deal with that, when we shall need another motion to approve whatever is to happen to Members' salaries from June of this year.
Despite the many different matters that are before us, I wish to speak briefly because later today we are to debate the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. That is a matter of substantial importance, and I do not think that the House should take the whole of the day to deal with these

domestic matters as against something of such great, substantive importance.
These debates are always rather embarrassing to most Members, but the embarrassment is unavoidable in that there is no means by which, ultimately, we can abdicate our responsibility to determine matters to do with our pay and the various allowances that so closely affect our ability to do our job.
The Leader of the House began his speech with a few philosophical remarks about the role of Parliament in relation to the total Government picture, from which, regrettably, I have to dissent. He appeared to suggest that the role of Parliament was to be—I think that he almost used the phrase—a school of manners or a forum in which the affairs of the nation are discussed. However, he did not use the words "a legislature".
It is not the role of this place just to second guess the Government, to be a long-stop for the Government, to embarrass the Government or to expose the Government. It is the role of this place to substitute its decision for that of the Government where enough Members think that it is important enough to do so. That vital and inescapable role of any legislature is in part affected by the services with which Members provide themselves to do their job.
Before coming to the specific proposals that are before us, I should like to make a general point relating to a difficulty that we are always in when we discuss these various allowances. We are often reluctant to invent a new allowance or to raise an existing allowance, because we know that once we have passed the motion there is very little control over the manner in which that motion is implemented. In effect, we give to a Member a right to draw from a fund, very much at a Member's discretion. There is no Committee of the House which supervises that. There is no person in the House, not even Mr. Speaker, who supervises that.
There are other Parliaments which do it differently. There are European Parliaments, and there is the European Assembly of the European Community, which either have committees or, in the case of the European Assembly, what it calls "quaestors", which have a measure of supervision over the use made of the


various allowances. It is disputable whether that is a good device to adopt, but it is certainly worth thinking about now that we have larger allowances and a greater complexity of allowances. It is particularly worth thinking about at a time when we have just given to ourselves the House of Commons Commission. It may be that under that Commission there ought to be some intermediary committee or group of senior Members who would exercise at least some reporting function upon the drawing of these allowances, and even conceivably some form of control over them.

Mr. English: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is precisely because of the point that he is making that many of us would rather have these things in kind instead of in cash? We would rather have typewriters provided than have to buy them out of any sort of allowance, and we would rather that we were able to put our secretaries on the normal payroll of the Palace of Westminster, as one could if one worked in business. In many cases we do not want the money; we want facilities.

Mr. Cunningham: But we do not work in business. Therefore, some differences are inevitable because of the fact that we are Members of Parliament and are not part of a normal office. We must accept that limitation. Payment in kind might get round some of the difficulties, but there are other difficulties that could not be got round in that way.
There is one recommendation in the report which is not reflected in any of the motions that are before us. That relates to
Ministers and other office holders in the House of Lords.
The Leader of the House did not mention that in his speech, I take it because that would be regarded as a matter for the House of Lords to decide. I do not see the right hon. Gentleman indicating assent or dissent from that proposition, but perhaps he will tell us later what the position is with regard to the recommendation on page 24 of the report relating to
Ministers and other office holders in the House of Lords.
Let us leave aside the other domestic office holders of the House of Lords. As

the important House of the legislature, we have an interest in the treatment that is accorded to Ministers who happen to be Members of the House of Lords.
The least controversial motion before us is the one which would allow spouses to have the car mileage allowance rather than vouchers. I do not think that anyone would object to that proposal. More controversially, we have the modest recommendations—and they are indeed modest—to enhance the severance payment, if that is the term for it, available to Members who are defeated in an election or who lose their seats as a result of redistribution. It is important to mention that those are the circumstances in which this payment is available. It is not a payment that is available to Members who simply decide to resign. That is an important point to make, because that is the source of the difficulty.
It would be possible to enhance the payments even more than Boyle recommends if we could find a way of distinguishing between a Member who simply decides to resign and one who, as it were, has lost his position in the House through no desire of his own and in circumstances in which he could not have anticipated it for any great length of time.
Points have been made about the proposals which Boyle has made in that regard. For myself, I accept the proposal that there should be enhancement above the age of 50 for Members who have been in the House for more than 10 years, but the view has been expressed to me that there is some oddity about making that enhancement available to Members who are well above normal retirement age. It is arguable that the amounts of money ought not only to rise with age but should tail off at the end of a normal working career, and that is something which the House and Boyle ought to look at on later occasions.
We come to the issue of the accrual rate in the Members' pension scheme. I do not share the view that because Members tend to spend, on average, 10 or 13 years in this House it ought to be possible to earn a full normal pension in right of that number of years of service in the House. That may be done for judges, but it may be that it is the arrangement for judges that is wrong and not the arrangements here. The legislation which this House passes on pensions in general does not


provide full pensions for people who, for a limited period, have been in a certain profession.
What we have tried to do over the last six years or so is to enforce some degree of transferability between one pension scheme and another. We have improved our own pension scheme to accept into it payments resulting from other pension schemes. It may well be that we shall have to improve that still further, not only for ourselves but for everyone in the country, so that when people have paid into a pension scheme they never lose the benefits which they and their employer have paid for, and so that those benefits are always enhanced in the light of inflation as they move from one job to another. Members of Parliament are not the only people who move from one job to another, and whatever needs to be done in terms of pensions to take care of that situation needs to be done for everyone, not only for ourselves.
Members of Parliament are different from others to a slighter extent than has been suggested, but still to some extent. The arrangements adopted in most other Parliaments are certainly more generous than we have adopted for ourselves. That comparison is one which the Boyle committee ought to look at in any future examination of this question.
The Boyle report touched upon a large number of suggestions that were made to it and for the most part dismissed the more minor ones. One of the most valuable which it did not dismiss is the suggestion that Members should be reimbursed for the costs of travel throughout the United Kingdom when on parliamentary duty. This being the second time that Boyle has forcefully made that proposal, I am sorry that the Government have decided that they do not want to touch it at all. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in his statement the other week that the Government were not prepared to accept this proposal "at the present time". I hope that he will say something later to qualify those words.
Does the Leader of the House envisage bringing forward a proposal at some other time within the next few years to reimburse travel costs? A Member who needs to travel about the country on parliamentary duties should not have to

find the cost out of his own pocket. Members of other Parliaments do not, for the most part, have to do so. The problem cannot be escaped by reimbursing the cost of travel only to Government Departments. There is no reason to suggest that a Member is working on parliamentary duties only if he is visiting a Government Department. He is just as much engaged on parliamentary duties if, say, he is visiting British Leyland before it is a public undertaking as he is when it is a public undertaking. We should remove that distinction.
It would be possible—I put it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for consideration—to have an arrangement with British Rail on a lump sum basis whereby the House paid a lump sum to British Rail, in return for which Members were able to travel free by rail—not by car or by air—in the performance of their duties. There would be disadvantages and anomalies. It would mean that a Member could not go to Shetland but that he could go to Aberdeen. But it would at least go some way towards the principle that such costs should not be met out of Members' pockets.
I turn to the largest proposal, that of raising the so-called secretarial and research allowance. It is time that we found another title for this allowance—possibly staff budget or something similar —because it is no longer a secretarial allowance.
I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing that the Boyle proposal of two allowances should be refused. The circumstances of individual Members are different. My constituency is only two-thirds of a constituency in terms of its electorate. Therefore, my need for purely secretarial assistance is less than that of Members who have twice the number of constituents, though I may have more need for research assistance than do other Members, or more desire for it or more willingness to use it.
There is no way in which we can squeeze the 635 Members into one pattern, so it is right that the Leader of the House should have agreed to the suggestion that we should overrule Boyle and substitute a measure which reflects our knowledge of how a Member's work has to be carried out. I do not say that as a criticism of Boyle. I shall return later


to the problems that we experience because we rely on a committee which is not a Committee of the House.
Boyle refers—and almost apologises for doing so—to the facilities that are available to Members in the Library. The Library could substitute for much of the work for which Members otherwise have to pay. To do that, the Library research staff would need to be expanded fourfold. At present the people working in the Library on different subjects cover such a wide spectrum that they have to search for information when a Member requests it. The right course is for each staff member in the Library to cover such a small area of work that he has most of the answers in his head. The quadrupling of the Library staff, which would pose problems of accommodation, would avoid much of the expense that Members would otherwise have to meet from the various allowances made available to them.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I would guess that in the last 15 years the Library staff have come to occupy physically one-third of the Library, which is no longer available to Members. Even if the fourfold increase were not physically located in the Library, because of having to look up books and records physically in the Library there would be still less room for Members, who are still permitted to enter the Library but for whom there is tragically decreased accommodation.

Mr. Cunningham: Our problem is that this building is the opposite of Dr. Who's police box. It is smaller inside than it looks from the outside. The only solution to that problem is to give ourselves another building. The Government have decided that they are not prepared to do that now, but there is no solution to the problem of proper working conditions of individual Members and committees without another building. One of the troubles is that fire precautions have killed every Parliament's prospects of a new building. If we look around the world, we see that the only way in which Parliaments obtain new buildings is by burning down the old ones. Unfortunately, however, fire precautions have made that impossible.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is plenty of room inside the Palace of Westminster? There are about 200 rooms just down the corridor in the Lords. The Lord Chancellor's Department is housed in this building. Could not we obtain far better use of that space by taking over for the use of the Commons, the major Chamber, some of it?

Mr. Cunningham: That is an attractive proposition, but I have no desire to get rid of the House of Lords and to end up with a senate. That is the danger in going down that corridor in the search for accommodation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster raised the question of the general status of a Member's secretary or other members of his staff. It has been suggested—the idea is contemplated sympathetically in the Boyle report—that the secretary of a Member of Parliament might be employed by the House of Commons. My impression is that most Members do not like that idea and that a large number of secretaries do not favour it either.
Boyle suggested that there should be an optional arrangement whereby a Member's secretary might be employed by the House if that Member and his secretary wished. If the facility were used by only a few Members—say, by a quarter of the Members—the difficulties of taking those secretaries on to the staff of the House would be the greater. There can be a degree of flexibility in the 500 secretaries, but I doubt whether it can be done with 100 secretaries. It must be stressed that the responsibility for employing people and for determining their conditions of work, the projects on which they work and their pay can only be that of the individual Member if the Member is to retain his control over his work.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a parallel? An institution was set up by the House a short time ago to split those Members who wished to retain the present system from those who wished their secretaries to be paid by the House. That is the agency scheme that is operated by the Fees Office. Some Members support that scheme and others dislike it, and that would be the case with the scheme to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there is an additional problem. If a secretary were employed by the House, the House would have some responsibility for redeploying that secretary if he or she were no longer wanted by the Member. An optional arrangement is the most that Members would want.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stressed that at present secretaries attract the additional pension under the State scheme. The Boyle Committee and the Chancellor have said that the allowances proposed in these motions ought to be sufficient to cover the employers' national insurance contribution as well as basic salary. That means that if the Member is spending nothing on research and is spending nothing on office costs, the most that he can pay his secretary is about £4,800 a year. That certainly is plenty to pay a typist, but whether it is plenty to pay the kind of secretary that a Member requires to do his job is very much another matter. Many secretaries feel—although they have not always felt so—that there ought to be some arrangement which provides the likelihood of pension additional to the State scheme, the equivalent of an occupational scheme.
I have always felt that the right way to deal with that problem, and the one most favourable to Members' secretaries, is to deal with it by the private annuity system under the Finance Act 1956, attracting complete tax relief. In that way the secretary would have an input to a scheme which she never lost, which was always with her, and where the employer's contribution, if there were one, and there should be one, also always stuck with the secretary.
But if that is to be done there will need to be an addition to the secretarial allowance to allow that amount to he paid into the private annuity. We shall have to do something, as is suggested by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), to ensure that that money is available only for that purpose and not generally. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment which would serve that purpose. That amendment, or something like it, is highly desirable, I think, for the future.
The Boyle report has returned this time to the issue of salary linkage. Now that

the committee has told us about three times that it is opposed to our idea, which the House passed in 1975, of linkage, I am beginning to understand why it is that the Boyle committee repeatedly rejects this idea. The Boyle committee rightly says that the job of a Member of Parliament cannot be compared with any other job in the country. The Boyle committee is engaged in its normal work in the business of comparing one job with another for pay purposes. It is staffed and served by the Office of Manpower Economics, or whatever it is, whose job is even more of that nature. It seems to feel that it would be professionally not respectable for it to overcome that objection to equating the job of a Member of Parliament with that of any other person.
We in the House have a completely different approach. We are not saying that the job of a Member of Parliament is like that of such and such a rank in the Civil Service or of a county court judge or whatever. We know that that is nonsense, too. What we are trying to do is to avoid the embarrassment of trying to raise our own salaries by finding some other way of dealing with the problem. So for us it is an escape, but for Boyle it has to be an escape which is not defensible by its normal standards. The Boyle committee always says, when it addresses itself to this subject—it has certainly done so this time—"We are against linkage, but if the House wants to go for linkage, here is the way that we suggest you do it." It does that in paragraph 98 of this latest report.
In 1975 the House passed a motion by a large majority of about 90 in favour of linkage in principle. It did so in circumstances where the then Government put the issue quite explicitly and intentionally to the House for a decision of principle, and the House took it. The flesh that has been put on the bones may not now attract the House, the particular form of linkage may not attract the House now, but surely there still is a majority of the House that is in favour of some kind of linkage so that we escape this eternal wrangle.
Linkage is not indexation. It does not mean that Members are automatically protected against inflation. It means that they are linked to some kind of band of other salaries, or perhaps an individual


salary, something like that. It does not mean automatically taking account of inflation. So we have tabled an amendment—we shall decide what to do with it in the light of the reception that there is in the course of the debate—which would reaffirm the attachment of the House to the principle of linkage, without suggesting what form of linkage we would adopt.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: When the House passed the motion in 1975, to which my hon. Friend referred, it also approved the linkage of both the subsistence allowance and the petrol allowance to avoid the embarrassment of having to discuss the mileage rate once a year or more frequently. It is as well that we do not have to discuss the mileage rate that Members of Parliament receive. It is linked to a rate that is tied to the Civil Service in the same way as the subsistence allowance. Exactly the same argument applied. We wanted the linkage for the same reasons. It was good enough for the House in 1975. The Boyle committee has never argued against what the House did in respect of mileage and subsistence. It is totally illogical for the Boyle committee to continue the argument that it is advancing on Members' salaries and linkage.

Mr. Cunningham: I have a great deal of sympathy with that. Of course, what the Boyle committee says can only ever be recommendations. It is up to the House to take the decision. The only trouble is that the House has always been reluctant to take this decision for itself.
In conclusion, I want to throw out a thought about the status of the Boyle committee, which I think it is time we were thinking about. It is now nearly 10 years since this subject matter was handed over for initial consideration by the Boyle committee. It is important to remember that it is not asked to consider these matters by the House. The House has never asked the Boyle committee to look at the subject matter. The Government ask the Boyle committee to do so, and the advice of the Boyle committee is tendered to the Government. On reading the report this year I could not suppress the thought that the Boyle committee was getting involved in detailed matters about travel allowances and paying for typewriters, matters touching upon

the work of a Member of Parliament, where frankly it does not have the expertise and it does not have the experience that fits it to take the decision better than we can ourselves.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Cunningham: When I look at the names of those who have signed this report—let me say that I pay great tribute to the hard work and long-suffering work of the Boyle committee, because it makes recommendations and does the job very well and the House, or the Government, promptly rejects half of what it recommends, so one is making no criticism of the members of the Boyle committee in saying this—it seems a bit odd, does it not, that these arrangements, so intimate to the working of the House, are drawn up by seven members, four of whom are members of the other place?
There is, of course, the chairman, who has been a Member of this place, and we pay great tribute to him. His knowledge must be invaluable to the committee. But the others, worthy though they are, hard working though they are and very helpful to Members though they are, are not the people whom we would choose if we were looking for people to understand how a Member of Parliament does his job and what he needs to do it.

Mr. Beith: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is it not true that the Boyle committee is a top salaries review body? Does he agree that it shows a woeful lack of understanding of the going rate for the rather lower salaries of secretaries in central London? Does not accept that it is not well equipped to deal with that aspect of the problem?

Mr. Cunningham: I suspect that the Boyle committee would secretly very much agree with us that it does not really want to get involved in this at all, but it has been saddled with it by the Government and it is not able to resign from the task. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is even less appropriate for deciding Members' secretaries' salaries. Maybe it is time for the House to start looking at another way in which it can distil its own thoughts on these matters before they come before the House for a decision.
As I said, we now have the House of Commons Commission. I do not think


that it would be right—nor would it be welcomed by the members of the commission—to saddle it with this job, but something working in the direction of the House of Commons Commission might be useful.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can anything be less generous to the needs of hon. Members than hon. Members of the House who are advancing towards retirement who look back at what happened a long time ago when deciding whether it is right to make the payments now? Surely, Boyle has been more generous to us than we have ever been to ourselves.

Mr. Cunningham: I agree, but I am making a point about something that we need to consider. I am referring to the House of Commons Commission only in the sense that we have now equipped ourselves with something like an executive committee or bureau of the House, which we have never had before. I am not suggesting that this job should or could be done by the House of Commons Commission. However, perhaps it is time for the House to start thinking again about an idea tossed out by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) when we discussed the matter in 1975. He mentioned the possibility of a Select Committee. After 10 years of operating with the Boyle committee it is time for us to think about whether that is how we want to continue.
While paying great tribute to the work that it has done and the help that has been given to us compared with the decisions which, as that committee frequently says, we have foolishly taken ourselves, I think that the proposals that are before us today will certainly increase the facilities that are available to hon. Members for doing their jobs. With the new Select Committees off to a good start, it is all the more important that individual members on those Committees and elsewhere in the House should have the facilities so that the will that exists to do the job is backed up.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I agree with most of the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in what was a typically thoughtful speech. I agreed especially with the point that he began to develop at the beginning of his speech and said a good deal about at the end of

his speech. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will seriously consider his constructive suggestion. It has my full support, and I fancy that it has the support of most, if not all, of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I acknowledge that there are other important matters for discussion and, therefore, I shall speak only briefly. I support the four motions tabled by my right hon. Friend, but I add the words "on this occasion", for I have a number of reservations about them that I shall develop.
I begin on a note of pleasantness which I believe is appropriate on such a nonpartisan occasion. Although I am not a delegate and can speak only for myself, I have no doubt that I speak for many others when I express my appreciation of the continuous helpfulness of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to us all in his consideration of these matters. He spoke of his strategic ideas and plans for our work in the House. He has made a notable contribution to the work of Parliament in that regard and I hope, in the long term, to its effectiveness. Although we had to apply a little pressure to get our way on the last occasion, he has been prompt in dealing with the Boyle report. He has gone out of his way to ensure the widest possible consultation. I assure him that that is greatly appreciated.
I turn now to a note of dissent. I must state my view plainly to my right hon. Friend. While I regard this document as representing some improvement, in all seriousness it is a modest package. Whether the world outside agrees with me, in my opinion we in the House pay ourselves and Ministers far too little. We provide ourselves with facilities that are woefully and pitifully inadequate to enable us to do our job. It remains a burning ambition of mine to see that the position is improved.
I regard it as invidious that these motions should have to be tabled by the Leader of the House. These are House of Commons matters. My right hon. Friend, who has the widest possible view of these matters, none the less stated plainly "I am the spokesman for the Government". Such motions should never


be tabled by the spokesman of the Government, however much he may be a friend of the House as a whole. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was entirely right. Between now and July, when we are likely to have another debate, we should give much thought to whether we can find another way to proceed.
I turn now to the individual motions on the Order Paper. Dealing with the first motion on the Review Body on Top Salaries and the take-note proposal, I join with my right hon. Friend—it is important for someone to say this from the Back Benches—in paying tribute to Lord Boyle and his colleagues. It may well be, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, that the members of that committee are finding their responsibilities increasingly invidious. They may find it tiresome to have to go into such considerable detail. Perhaps we should ask someone else to report or take more of the responsibility. However, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made his remarks in the way in which he did, because my tribute to Lord Boyle and his colleagues is unreserved. I, together with some of my hon. Friends, gave evidence to that committee on a number of occasions. I pay eloquent tribute to the painstaking, careful and well-informed way in which it has conducted its work.

Mr. George Cunningham: I hope that carelessness of language did not make me suggest that I was in any way not appreciative of the work that Lord Boyle and his committee have done. I am sure that they have all been exceedingly painstaking. I was only questioning whether any committee from outside the House is able to go into the more detailed aspects of the matters that the committee covered in its report.

Mr. du Cann: If that is so, I am happy that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention.
I was worried about a remark made by my right hon. Friend. He said that looking at our remuneration, allowances and so on is a continuous process. I do not believe that we can go on in this way, constantly referring the minutiae of our situation to the Boyle committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington,

South and Finsbury that we must find another way.
Furthermore, the House should reflect that in the 10 months of this Parliament we have had two statements from the Government Front Bench, this is our second debate which may take some time and, as has been said, we are likely to have another debate in July. That means that we have taken up five tranches of parliamentary time discussing our own affairs when there is a great catalogue of claimants for parliamentary time such as steel, Afghanistan, terrorism, Africa and the economic situation. I repeat that we cannot go on as at present. We must find some new form of reference point.
The second motion on the Order Paper deals with Members' office, secretariat and research allowances. I have already said that we do not provide ourselves with adequate facilities to enable us to do our job. I endorse what was said about the amounts payable for research assistants or secretaries being lower than they should be. I agree with the Boyle report that we should not put our secretaries and research assistants into the employ of the State or the House of Commons. The relationship between a Member of Parliament and his secretary and research assistants is inevitably too personal to allow that to happen.
The mistake that is constantly made is to apply the doctrine of universality. We are not all the same. Our responsibilities are not the same. An hon. Member who is Chairman of a Select Committee may have three four or five times as much work as a member of that Committee. The House is very familiar with the distinctions.
The real advantage in finding a new reference point is that these points would be much better understood by any group of people other than ourselves. The truth is that we operate on a wholly different basis from that of any commercial undertaking. If one gives a man a job, one sees that he has the equipment to do it, whether he is working on the shop floor or in an office. That is what we have consistently failed to do here. The sooner we change the position, the better.
I am sure that it is absolutely right for the House to heed the wise advice of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member


for Islington, South and Finsbury on the subject of accountability. That is mentioned in paragraph 16 of Boyle. When one is dealing with public funds, it is more than ever necessary to be carefully accountable for them.
I endorse motion No. 3 on car mileage allowances for spouses of Members of Parliament. If the principle of travelling expenses for spouses is accepted, it must be immaterial how they travel, and not every constituency is fortunate enough to be served by the railways.
On the question of the grant for former Members of Parliament, I should like to give some advice to those who have sponsored amendments under this heading. I was surprised to see that none of the leading names was included in the list of those who gave evidence to Boyle. That is a pity. When individual Members have views that are so strongly held that they put down amendments, they should go and see Boyle and tell him what they think. How else can they expect Boyle to reflect fairly the views of the House? I think that what Boyle has decided by and large is right.
I now come to one or two matters that are not mentioned in the motions. Paragraph 47 of the Boyle report refers to pre-1964 Members. I am very disappointed that nothing is to be done for these people. This is a piece of meanness, and the idea that they should be referred to the Members' fund smacks of charity and is totally unsuitable. I think that any reasonable commercial organisation would behave in a better manner towards old servants in the evening of their lives.
I turn to paragraph 74 on the question of travel. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that the present position is ludicrous. An hon. Member can get travelling expenses if he or she goes to a Government Department locally or if he or she is a member of a Select Committee. However, if an hon. Member wishes to do anything else, he cannot get travelling expenses. Why are the Government not prepared to agree to this? My right hon. Friend said that it was a matter of cost. But the costs are likely to be trivial, and any small amount is justified if it enables a Member of Parliament to do his job better. It would perhaps save a large sum of money in the long run.
I turn to the question of linkage which is raised in paragraph 90 onwards. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury put it well when he said that linkage was not indexation. It is not, and to pretend that it is is to mislead the House a little. I agree that it is very difficult to find an analogue—that ghastly word—that is exact, but the proposal which the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and I put to Boyle deserves further examination. We pointed out that as Boyle was already working regularly on a group of professions—senior officers of the Armed Forces, chairmen of the nationalised industries, judges and others—it should be possible to make an index from their positions and apply it to Members of Parliament. That would be a rough yardstick. The fact that we would not have to be bothered with these matters in between the main reviews every four years would be a great advantage to everyone. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not say that he has closed his mind to linkage for all time.
Then there is the question of the recommendation of paragraph 24 on Ministers in the House of Lords. I do not know whether this is an appropriate matter for this House, but I hope that it will not be overlooked.
I hope that I have said enough to illustrate the matters which I believe every hon. Member has in mind. There continue to be an irritating and absurd group of anomalies in the way in which we do things. We need to find some method by which, on a continuous basis, we can iron out these anomalies—whether they are about pensions or Ministers' salaries. It is necessary for our own health and peace of mind and for the proper working of Parliament that we do so.
It is even more important that we should try to avoid the absurd spectacle of continuous debates about our own circumstances. I am sure that this Chamber is not the proper place to have these matters thrashed out. One cannot keep on making great speeches about paragraph 24, or recommendation 13, or about the principles of secretarial allowances. These matters are for a Select Committee or for a group of Members acting on our behalf. It is very gratifying that the Parliamentary Labour Party, the 1922 Committee and the Parliamentary Affairs Group have come together to discuss these


matters from time to time. There is already a forum and a precedent, and there is no reason why this should not be built upon. In fact, there is every reason why it should be built upon.
If we can find some other body to work on these matters and take the lead on our behalf, that will enable the constitutional development of the House of Commons to continue. This is an area in which my right hon. Friend has made a notable beginning, and it is something which is dear to his heart. This will give him more time for his proper responsibilities and enable us to deal with matters which are much more important to the general public than our personal circumstances.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I wish to direct my remarks to the motions and amendments concerning the allowances and facilities available to Members rather than to the salaries and provisions directly for Members. Those who work for us have more cause to be dissatisfied with the present position and the proposed improvements than we have, even though we have our problems and grievances. Those who work for us and give us excellent service have strong reason to be dissatisfied with they way in which their case has been considered.
I wish to put two points on the record. First, the Liberal Party continues to support the idea of linkage of Members' salaries to a suitable analogue. This does not mean indexation for inflation, which is quite a different principle and one with which I do not agree. What the House has asked for is a link between Members' salaries and those of some outside group, and we should still implement that principle.
In a number of ways we still place a burden upon those hon. Members who work the hardest and upon those who are most conscientious. Many of us resent that. A pattern still exists in some of the allowances. It is financially favourable to an hon. Member to do as little as possible. That principle should not be built into our provisions. There has been a continuous failure to do anything about office expenses. If a constituent writes from abroad, the hon. Member who is most punctilious in maintaining correspondence and who replies and sends

papers to his constituent will find himself penalised by overseas postage rates. In former years the principle has been advanced that if an hon. Member puts his correspondence in a waste paper basket, the constituent will not write again. He who replies most fully will incur the greatest expense.
In my constituency it costs about £1,500 a year to advertise and provide the system of surgeries that many hon. Members enjoy. The cost of hiring rooms and—even more—of advertising in local papers will be high if an hon. Member represents a widely scattered community. Many local authorities provide councillors with such facilities. However, the Boyle committee lightly dismisses that aspect. It makes the naïve assumption that the Houghton report on financing political parties is bound to be implemented. I have seen nothing that provides evidence for that assumption.
The Leader of the House has sought to help hon. Members in a limited way. Indeed, some hon. Members have suggested that he has fused the two allowances. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore implied that many hon. Members should forget about assistance for research. He is suggesting that hon. Members should recognise that the secretarial allowance is inadequate but that it can be boosted by means of the research allowance. The fact that that is felt to be necessary bears out a point that I made earlier. The Boyle committee has failed to come to terms with the needs of many hon. Members who employ full-time secretaries of some experience and ability. They wish to see their secretaries rewarded on a basis comparable to that which can be obtained outside the House or in Government Departments.
Secretaries' salaries should be comparable to those of others who work within the building and who are employees of the House of Commons. The Boyle committee has failed to understand the going rate in central London. It does not understand the effect of making hon. Members pay the national insurance contributions of their secretaries. It has not considered what the possible effect might be if more hon. Members made pension provision for their secretaries comparable to those obtained outside the House.
The Boyle report states that the allowance of £5,500 will permit hon. Members


to provide the employer's national insurance contribution. Therefore, from that £5,500 we must immediately deduct 13·5 per cent. for national insurance contributions. Unless the Boyle committee expects us to make up our secretaries' salaries from our own salaries, we must assume that the amount available to pay a full-time secretary will be about £4,750. The Boyle committee assumes also that we do not deduct any amount for office expenses and for further pension provision. It does not assume that we will set aside money in case our secretary falls sick and has to be replaced for that period. Those expenses are reckoned to be part of the existing secretarial allowance.
We may therefore assume that only about £4,000 per annum will be available for a secretary's salary. Several hon. Members make provision for their secretaries to become members of contributory pension schemes. Several Liberal Members do so through the party's pension scheme. They therefore pay the employer's contribution on the secretary's salary. They are paying not 13·5 per cent. but 20 per cent. of their secretary's salary in combined national insurance and pension contributions. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, other hon. Members may make annuity arrangements under existing Finance Acts. They also pay more than 13·5 per cent. In all those cases, the amount available for a secretary's salary will be a great deal lower than that specified.
A secretary is forced to expect the hon. Member for whom she works to subsidise her salary from his own. If that does not occur, she will have to accept a rate that is not slightly but enormously lower than the prevailing rate for an experienced and competent secretary in London. The bands that operate in the Civil Service go up to £5,500 for such secretaries. Those rates are part of a system in which the secretary need not make pension contributions. Those salary scales assume a non-contributory Civil Service pension scheme. Those who work for us are placed at a substantial disadvantage in every way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Civil Service tell some of the truth but not the whole of it. The figures for a personal secretary start

at £4,057. That salary goes up by six increments to £4,830. A senior person or secretary will receive £4,603, rising by five increments to £5,573. Of course, those figures include the sum of £780 for inner London weighting. Therefore, the gap is not so great. There has always been a gap between the salaries paid to secretaries in the House and those paid to secretaries working in financial organisations in the City. Such organisations may pay more, but they do not have the interest of a job in this House.

Mr. Beith: Let us not argue whether Civil Service scales are comparable to commercial rates in central London. Let us take those scales at their face value. All those bodies that have ruled on pay have repeatedly said that these rates recognise the particular position of Civil Service secretaries. They do not have to make an employee's contribution to the cost of their pensions.
There is a difference between those secretaries and the ones that I am discussing. Secretaries who work in the House of Commons must pay their own contributions to a pension fund. The allowances described do not allow hon. Members to pay their secretaries on that scale, once deductions have been made for national insurance contributions and for office expenses. The allowances might just allow an hon. Member to pay his or her secretary if she is employed on the bottom point of the ordinary scale. Unless an hon. Member subsidises his secretary's salary, he will not be able to pay salaries at the top of that scale. He will certainly be unable to pay salaries in the upper reaches of the senior secretary scales.
Many secretaries who are employed in the House have worked for the same hon. Member for five or 20 years. They have enormous knowledge and experience of the House. They are of the highest possible standard. By any comparison, they should be in the upper reaches of that scale. I have received support from hon. Members of all parties. I have therefore tabled an amendment that will remove any assumptions about contributing to the pension scheme out of the secretarial allowance. That is not the only thing that I would like to do. I would like to ensure that the scale provides adequate provision for paying the going rates.
However, we should ensure tonight that those hon. Members who so wish can put their secretaries on a proper pension footing. They should do so either by the type of annuity that has already been described or by paying into a variety of occupational private pension schemes. There are various ways in which that can be done. However, hon. Members need some money in order to do that.
My amendment makes clear that I do not want this to be a general addition to the alllowance that could be claimed by those who do not make provision for their secretaries. I agree that it will be to the disadvantage of those who work for us if we do not ensure full accountability and if we do not make provision for moneys to be available for particular purposes. The amendment is specific in its requirement. The sums of money made available would represent 10 per cent. of the amount that is available to those employed. However, those sums could be made available only for payment into pension funds.
Such sums would allow an hon. Member to have a pension contribution made in respect of not just one but, if necessary, two or three people employed out of that sum, whether part-time or full-time. An hon. Member could make that contribution in respect of not only a secretary employed out of the £5,500 but a research assistant out of the other sums, if he employed one. I have simply tied to secure the principle that it is 10 per cent. of the amount available for the secretarial allowance.
I appeal to hon. Members to try to make it clear tonight that we believe that our secretaries are entitled to reasonable pension provision and that we are prepared to make available an allowance that can be used solely for that purpose. If we did that, we should go some way towards meeting the justified criticism of the way in which we handle these matters.
The provisions available to hon. Members in respect of travel and other matters can be improved in many ways. We have an obligation to those who work for us to ensure that they are paid at reasonable levels and that provision for their old age is made on an adequate basis and is not regarded as something that

should be prevented or discouraged because they happen to work for Members of Parliament.

Mr. Roger Sims: I welcome the report and the Government's prompt acceptance of its main proposals. I venture to suggest that had previous reports been accepted and implemented as so promptly, at any rate in regard to the main recommendations, we should not be in some of the difficulties that we are discussing now.
It is unfortunate that what has occurred previously has given rise to pressure for linkage, particularly with regard to hon. Members' salaries. I supported the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) several years ago in his motion for linkage. I did so more in a sense of frustration than because I was entirely convinced by the case. It seemed the only way in which the matter would be adequately settled.
There is difficulty in achieving an appropriate linkage for hon. Members' salaries. By far the best system must be regular review, as suggested in paragraph 90 of the report. I welcome the assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Government accept the recommendation, that there will be regular reviews and that, subject to the vague reservations made by my right hon. Friend, the outcome of the reviews will be implemented.
Having welcomed the main recommendation in the report with regard to secretarial allowance, I want to make two comments. I am not sure whether it is clear to those outside the House that the allowance is not a perk. I wish to make it clear that it is simply to enable hon. Members to have facilities that are automatically provided in virtually every other job. One would automatically have a secretary, with equipment to enable her to do the job. It is often implied, particularly in the press, that it is a supplement to our salary. That is unfair and untrue.
Reference has been made to the accountability of the allowance, and interesting proposals have been put forward. There should be a degree of accountability, but there already is accountability to the extent that the Inland Revenue is entitled to ask—and does from time to time—how the allowance has been spent. If an hon. Member indicates how he has


distributed the allowance, the Inland Revenue can check up.
I am glad that the Leader of the House indicates that there will be more flexibility in the sums available than was at first thought. However, I am bound to endorse strongly the view put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the lack of generosity of the figure recommended.
The report recognises that most hon. Members have and need a full-time secretary. The days when a secretary could divide her time between two or three hon. Members are passing. She is a secretary and not just a shorthand typist. She is expected to perform all the duties of a personal secretary employed in commerce or industry. We expect a high standard, and we need secretaries who in commerce or industry would be working for a senior manager or director. We should have secretaries of that calibre, not only to make our work easier but in the interests of our constituents, who expect us to do a proper job.
Such secretaries expect reasonable working conditions, which many do not enjoy if they work in the Palace of Westminster or the outbuildings. Having served on the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, I realise the difficulties of providing satisfactory working conditions. However, in other circumstances a secretary of the calibre that I have indicated would not have to work in a room with a dozen other secretaries. We do the best we can. The shortcomings of the accommodation should strengthen the case to ensure that our secretaries are adequately paid.
As has been said, the £5,500 would not all end up in the secretary's pocket. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed indicated the deductions that are necessarily made. The remaining figure that we pay to our secretaries is modest by any standards, whether we compare their pay with the Civil Service or walk down Victoria Street to see the agency notices and the salaries quoted, to which can be added generous pension schemes and luncheon vouchers, which are now no small consideration.

Mr. Beith: What is worse, our secretaries walk down Victoria Street and see those notices.

Mr. Sims: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right.
The report also refers to surgery costs. I agree that it is not possible to quantify the costs incurred by an hon. Member in performing his constituency job. They are bound to vary. Many of us conduct our surgeries or advice bureaux in our party headquarters. Expenses are involved in lighting and heating. Often our agents act on the spot as secretaries, to the extent that they deal with correspondence and telephone calls in respect of our work not as the local representatives of political parties but as Members of Parliament. They work on our behalf in the constituencies, with the obvious expenses involved.
Those expenses are difficult to quantify, and I accept that the report cannot put forward recommendations. However, if an hon. Member is asked or offers to contribute to his local party to meet those costs the money has to come from his own pocket—which is not entirely fair—or has to be deducted from his secretarial allowance, and his secretary gets less. It is not satisfactory either way. If it is not possible to have a surgery allowance—and I accept that it is not—the secretarial allowance should take that factor into account.
The cost of travel outside the Westminster-constituency-home triangle has been mentioned. The report repeats the obvious fact that to do the job properly a Member of Parliament, particularly on the Back Benches, needs to travel to other parts of the country to visit, for instance, prisons, defence establishments, factories and community schemes. At present the expense of such travel comes from his own pocket.
My right hon. Friend does not dispute the merit of this aspect of the report and previous reports, but he is not prepared to implement it at present on grounds of cost. He did not indicate what the estimated cost might be. I appreciate that that might be difficult. In those circumstances, I endorse strongly the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that we should consider some form of railway season ticket that was valid throughout the country. That facility is enjoyed by Members of many overseas legislatures. The suggestion has a number of merits.


It would enable Members of Parliament to make the visits that I suggested. It would have the incidental effect of encouraging the use of rail rather than road. I do not think that the system is likely to be abused. After all, a Member of Parliament's life does not allow much scope for joy-riding on British Rail. It would save the time and trouble of having to complete and exchange a warrant every time a Member of Parliament made a visit to Westminster or elsewhere from his nearest station, with all the business of exchanging warrants.
Some costs would be involved in this scheme, but they would not be enormous. It should be possible for the House to negotiate special rates for the scheme with British Rail. There would be a saving in one direction. It would no longer be necessary for the Fees Office to check and process large numbers of warrants, which are at present issued on an individual basis. I ask my right hon. Friend to give the scheme serious consideration.
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for his promptness in implementing the report. I thank him for his sympathetic approach to the report and to hon. Members' problems.

Mr. Michael English: May I follow the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in his congratuations to the Chancellor? As long as the right hon. Gentleman makes his own decisions and keeps them as far away as possible from the Cabinet, he seems to do very well. I hope that he will continue to do so.
In this case he had poor material on which to work. I regard this as the worst Boyle report that I have seen. I shall give an illustration. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) did not like my comparison of the rate for judges in their pension scheme with ours. I said earlier that Boyle, from his wording, was not aware of that. The Office of Manpower Economics never mentions the existence of the accrual rate of 15 years in the case of judges. Paragraph 43 of the Boyle report says:
Faster rates of accrual are not common and are mainly related to particularly hazardous and physically demanding jobs.

I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but Lord Denning seems to continue to do a physically demanding and particularly hazardous job well into his eighties.
I am irritated by the last sentence of the paragraph. Apparently we are supposed to receive a pension of two-thirds of our salary as long as we have been here for 40 years. I was elected to the House at a fairly early age. Even so, that would mean that I must stay until I am 73. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".] I agree. I was making the point myself.
The country would be better served it Members of Parliament were not encouraged to stay in this job long after, in some cases, they are physically and mentally fit to do so. Lord Boyle says that this does not matter and that
Moreover, the ability to purchase additional years of reckonable service goes a long way towards meeting the citicisms of the present rate of accrual without imposing any further financial burden on those MPs who regard the present rate as adequate.
I regard that statement as extremely arrogant. It shows a complete lack of comprehension of the financial circumstances of the majority of Members of Parliament. That is true of Government supporters as well as members of the Opposition. The day when Members of Parliament all had land in Middlesex and spare capital with which to buy added years have gone. Some Members of Parliament are extremely rich in their private capacities or because of the work they do outside. If they want to buy added years, good luck to them. However, the assumption that we should all be satisfied, because some Members of Parliament have spare capital to invest in added years, is erroneous.
It is not only Members of Parliament who are involved; we are talking about our wives and children. If an hon. Member dies, his widow's pension is half the supposed two-thirds after 40 years. For a child, it is one-quarter, up to a maximum of two children. When we talk about added years, we are thinking of the standard of living of our widows and underage children.
Lord Boyle arrogantly assumes that everyone has a bit of spare capital with which to buy these added years.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I add a slightly less contentious footnote to what


Lord Boyle said? It is not possible for Members of Parliament, even if they have the spare capital—which the hon. Gentleman says they do not have—to buy additional years. The qualifying date has passed. It is not possible to buy additional years.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He further proves my point. I forgot the point that he mentioned. However, he proves my point that this paragraph in the Boyle report is completely inadequate because of its omissions of fact.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it was not necessary to purchase those additional years out of capital but that arrangements were available to Members of Parliament to buy them on a scale basis?

Mr. English: I do not want to go into details at this stage. The hon. Gentleman may well be correct. The arrangements were not particularly advantageous in terms of saving and investment.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: rose —

Mr. English: I gave way twice on this point. If I continue to give way on one point, my speech will be very long. I hope that my hon. Friend will get the opportunity to make his own speech on this subject. No doubt he will then tell me that I was wrong, as we all so often do.
I turn to another point about which Lord Boyle is petty. The costs involved are almost negligible. We have been talking about travel. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury; even the councillors in the city of Nottingham get a free bus pass throughout the city. It is appropriate that Members of Parliament should be entitled to a pass on the railway system. A pass is precisely accountable. It could hardly be misused. Members of the National Union of Railwaymen would notice if a Member of Parliament perpetually went to the Lake District or the Highlands of Scotland merely for the joyride. The news would soon get out. No cash would be involved. That is one of the proposal's greatest merits.
The pettiness of Boyle is illustrated by the fact that he thinks that Members'

wives should be allowed 15 car journeys a year but that no provision should be made for Members' children. He assumes that an hon. Member never wants to take his children by rail, because he will drive them in a car as he receives a car allowance in any case. The only anomaly is that the parents must pay for the poor kids if they go by rail. It is a petty matter. It would cost very little and is simple to deal with.
The one burden that Members of Parliament have that most other people do not is the necessity of virtually living in two different places—in one place at the weekends and in London during the week—for most weeks of the year.
I now turn to linkage. We are always told that there is no job like ours. That statement is totally false. There are plenty of jobs like ours. There is an elected legislature in every democratic country. I am beginning to think that we may have made a mistake when we linked the salaries of our Euro-Members of Parliament to our salaries; we should have linked our salaries to what theirs should be. When I say "linked", I do not necessarily mean that we should pay ourselves salaries as high as those paid, for instance, in the Federal Republic of Germany, which are roughly what govern the Euro-Members' recommendations; I mean coincident with—we can say 50 per cent., or 30 per cent. or 60 per cent.—whatever it is chosen to link them with.
To say that there are no comparable jobs is not true. It is a very parochial attitude to make the assumption that all the jobs with which ours are compared have to be in our own country. Let us by all means link our salaries to the new earnings survey, or whatever the House generally wishes, but do not say that there are no jobs with which Members of Parliament's jobs can be compared, because there are plenty.
Finally, on the question of secretaries, this has not yet been stated but it is there in very shrouded language in Boyle: we all know that the vast majority of hon. Members of this House work extremely hard and spend their secretarial allowance on their secretaries and on office equipment. I have never been able to understand the peculiar way in which the whole pay and allowances of Members


of Parliament are determined. It is amazing but true that for tax purposes we are regarded as employees, yet, unlike employees in, say, industry, who walk into an office provided by the organisation and have a secretary provided by the organisation, we are supposed, on a tax basis as an employed person, to act as if we were self-employed persons.
As a result of this, if I go out and buy "Erskine May"—which is not corn-manly regarded as light reading, except by you and me, Mr. Speaker—it must be paid for out of my taxed income, because I am not supposed—there is a decided case on it—to acquire information. The amazing but true fact is that on the basis of our tax position as Members of Parliament we are not supposed to spend any money on acquiring information. I suppose the idea of the Inland Revenue authorities is that if MPs were well informed, things would perhaps be too difficult for them. That must be the idea of the Exchequer and the Revenue.
That is the tax situation. When we come to the allowances, on the other hand, we are supposed to be paid an allowance, which, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has already said, is not really adequate for a full-time Member of Parliament if he is doing his job thoroughly.
But the problem with paying cash is that there are a few Members of Parliament here whom we rarely see, who are not often here and who pay relatives—who, one suspects, do not work quite as hard as some of the secretaries who are working in offices in central London. I do not wish to go into the details of this, but that is the problem of accountability, as Boyle puts it. That is precisely why many of us would like to be able to say of our secretaries—as would be the case if we worked at ICI, Rio Tinto, Turner and Newall or any other straightforward company—that they are secretaries paid for and pensioned by the organisation. We would not have the trouble of taking in cash and working out and arguing about whether we were spending it properly or improperly or whether any of our colleagues were.
Surely that would be much more sensible from the point of view both of the

taxpayer and of public expenditure. We should be saying clearly to the public that we do not take in and handle spare cash, that our salary is our salary and that that is the end of the matter; the costs of our offices and secretaries are paid by the State and we have nothing to do with this; the money does not pass through our hands.
The Leader of the House may well have been right when he said that the majority of hon. Members of this House do not want that, but some of us do, and all that we are suggesting is that we have the option. I am not trying to stop other hon. Members doing their own thing. I am not trying to stop hon. Members sticking to the existing system if they so wish, but I hope that other hon. Members are not trying to stop people like myself having what we are here suggesting as an option. If they are, I must ask why. The only reason I can suggest is that people who are not properly accounting for the money that they are receiving clearly would not want to adopt the system; and if they do not want other people to adopt it, it is presumably because they might then be isolated and noticeable, as it were.
I cannot think of a fairer basis than that which Boyle recommends, and I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not agreed to it. I cannot think of a fairer basis than to adopt the Boyle recommendation and let us decide for ourselves whether, as individuals, we wish to take and account for actual cash or to have nothing to do with it and simply have our secretaries—who in many cases work here—put on the same conditions and the same salaries as the girls whom they meet over coffee, who also work here, but for the House itself.

Mr. John Stokes: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) but I must say, speaking personally and as one who has had some experience of these matters, that I disagree to some extent with both the tone and the content of his speech. I am sorry to say this.
In general, I welcome the latest Boyle proposals about the secretarial allowance and the allowance for research assistants.


I think that it is sound to put them together. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who has now left the Chamber, that probably they are a little mean if we take the pension fund contribution into account. Perhaps that can be remedied next year.
On the question of linkage, I still maintain that our job is unique. Although it may be disagreeable and distasteful to have to discuss our salaries once or twice a year, I would far prefer that to our being linked to a band of other professions, because immediately members of those professions had their salaries changed there would be the question of the effect on the salaries of Members of Parliament. Great practical difficulties are involved in linkage.
I support the grants for former hon. Members who have had to leave. I still maintain that the basic pension fund for hon. Members is unfair and unsound and really should be altered, if possible within the next 12 months.
On the question of these allowances, I admit that after nine and a half years in the House I have changed my mind somewhat. When I first came here I thought that only a part-time secretary would be needed by most hon. Members and that a research assistant was an unnecessary piece of window dressing. However, since then things have changed, even in that space of under 10 years. Government, unfortunately, has become more complex. The amount of legislation and the introduction of the new and, we hope, more effective Select Committees lead me to believe that if we Back Benchers are to fulfil one of our prime duties here—that of checking the power of the Executive and probing its expenditure—we need full-time assistance by a competent and experienced secretary and in a number of cases the help of a research assistant as well.
I warn the House, though, that these tendencies must be watched. We do not want to end up, for instance, with all the office and secretarial paraphernalia that goes with being an American senator. I also devoutly hope that the Government, as they continue in office, will legislate less and less. Once we have demolished the Socialist State and all its apparatus—to which, I regret to say, both Labour and Conservative Governments have contributed

since 1945—and once we have introduced our own vital legislation, I hope that we can look forward to a legislative holiday, with better and more strictly controlled government and administration. In our great days the House did not sit in the autumn, we spent much less time here and the country was much better governed. Also, we were not reported, dissected and mucked about with by the media.
I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) about hon. Members who travel in the triangle between home, constituency and Westminster. I am one of those involved, and I am taking up with the Treasury the question of taxation.
I want to add a word of warning about the amount of work that we are all called upon to do. I refuse to call my personal interviews either surgeries or advice bureaux. I may be able to give advice, I may have some knowledge of life, but I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer. I do not hold myself out as giving cheap advice to people who will not consult professional experts.
Personal interviews can become excessive in number and time-wasting. It is right that we should all hear our constituents' complaints, especially hon. Members with no outside job who may be Westminster- or Whitehall-oriented and who do not see enough of real life outside this place. However, in my interviews I find that in most of the income tax cases that are brought to my notice by constituents—the Treasury is very good at taking up these matters—the constituent is far too often right and the Inland Revenue wrong, and that is very disturbing.
In my experience of an industrial constituency of 85,000 souls, apart from tax complaints most complaints are on local matters. That is why I always have a local councillor ready in the next room to join me when a subject comes up that might be or is within the council's jurisdiction. We should not duplicate councillors' work, but we can make sure that they get on with the job.
Our constituents are bound to write to us from time to time on personal or political matters, and it is right that they should. I try to follow the example of the Iron Duke


and reply to every letter received on the day I get it. Constituents are right to expect a prompt answer, and that is what we all try to give, but to give that service we must have the necessary secretarial back-up and assistance.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will agree that the House is far too busy; there are far too many Committees. We all expect some relaxation of this hectic pace by next autumn. It sometimes places an intolerable load upon us and an even greater load upon our secretaries.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Most of the amendments on the Order Paper have been signed by new Members of Parliament. I do not suggest that new Members have a monopoly of concern, but some of us who came to the House for the first time on 3 May last year are taken aback to find ourselves part of an institution that is trying desperately to get from the eighteenth century into the nineteenth century or, in deference to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), from the seventeenth century into the eighteenth century. When we have complained about this to longstanding Members, we have been told "You think it bad now, but it was worse when we came here." That is an expression I have heard perhaps 30 times, and I no longer take note of that comment.
The issues we are debating today are more important than merely the question of Members' pay. They are concerned with helping us to do our jobs better for our constituents. However, it is probably desirable that the country should see Members of Parliament as being, if anything, underpaid but adequately backed up to enable them to do their jobs decently.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Why? The only purpose of underpaying any group of people is so as not to attract into the profession someone who might otherwise consider it.

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman has answered the question he put to me. Our constituents are not impressed by the constant moaning of Members about their pay and conditions of work. Their general attitude appears to be that we

should be able to sort it out. That is what we are here for, and I hope that that is what we shall be able to do today.
The Leader of the House said that because the country was facing economic difficulties some of the suggestions contained in the Boyle report could not be implemented. But those very economic difficulties tend to have a dramatic effect upon the work load of Members of Parliament. In dealing with case loads, the more diligent is the Member, the more work he has to do. It is one of the rare occasions in life when virtue is punished and sin rewarded.
The country wants us to get on and do our jobs properly. It wants us to employ our secretaries in conditions that are at least similar to those applying elsewhere, and it wants us to be fair to former Members. I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the problems we are talking about might have been solved some time ago if most Members of Parliament were full-time. Some conditions have continued to apply until the present day mainly because a fair number of Members of Parliament do their parliamentary work not from the House but from offices connected with their other jobs. They are therefore under less pressure to have the sort of facilities that full-time Members of Parliament need to do a decent job.
I have tabled an amendment dealing with the reimbursement of Members for the cost of travel within the United Kingdom. I do not agree with the Leader of the House that a large sum of money is involved. If a large sum is involved, will he give us an estimate of it? I am concerned with travel specifically and exclusively on parliamentary duties. Many Members have to use their own money for this. If we want to visit a prison, we have to pay the fare out of our own pocket. The sums involved might not be very large, but sometimes the journey is a long one. If a Member is interested in visiting the North Sea oil rigs, he has to pay his fare to Aberdeen, and that would be quite expensive. Private firms would be only too happy to pay Members' fares to distant parts of the United Kingdom to visit some of their installations. It is undesirable that Members of Parliament should have that sort of inducement, which would make it difficult for them afterwards to disagree with a firm's


policies. There is a point of principle here. It would be better for Members of Parliament not to have to depend upon charity to enable them to make necessary visits in the United Kingdom.
It has become increasingly obvious that it is impossible for a Member of Parliament to do his job properly without a full-time secretary. One needs only to look at the salaries offered not only in Victoria Street but in the secretarial pages of The Times and The Guardian to see that most of us would not dare to advertise for a secretary in those newspapers. We simply could not compete with the going rate, taking into account the work and the responsibility.
I do not wish to make comparisons with the United States. It is well known that the average American representative has a staff of 18. I do not think that we need to go along that path, but at least some small progress in the appointment of a full-time secretary and a full-time research assistant would enable us to do our jobs better. I have a suspicion that the Front Benches—this may be unfair to them—may have an interest in keeping Back Benchers hard pressed dealing with constituency matters so that we do not have time to go into some of the political issues in order to make a better attack on what the Front Benches are doing. Perhaps the Front Benches prefer things as they are.
We have an excellent Library. Hon. Members pay tribute, without fail, to the high standard of help and work that the Library staff provide. They are limited. We cannot depend upon them to carry out work that research assistants would perform. I would commend to the House the suggestion that we should not depend upon the Library but that we should have our own research staff to supplement the work of the Library.
I turn to the question of the central employment of secretaries. This has been put down in an amendment as an option for hon. Members. It clearly must be that. At one stroke, it would tackle many of the difficulties now faced by hon. Members in employing secretaries. It would deal with all the problems of pensions, severance pay and so on. It seems to me reasonable for the House to express the view that those hon. Members who wish to avail themselves of such an option

should be allowed to do so. It would also tackle the problem, which is the subject of another amendment, of what happens when a secretary falls ill for a long period.
At the moment, our salaries will pay for secretarial help while our secretaries are on holiday, but a lengthy illness presents difficulty. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could explain what action an hon. Member is supposed to take if, by chance, his secretary were to fall ill for two or three months. How is one supposed to manage? Is one supposed to fire her while she is ill? Or is one supposed to pay two or three months' secretarial pay for temporary help out of one's salary while one's secretary is ill? The amendment that deals with this matter is of some importance.
I have never been in the House when it has been dissolved. It seems to me that, given the number of ongoing problems with which an hon. Member will be dealing, there are bound to be a large number of letters that arrive in the period between the Dissolution of the House and the time after the election. At the very least, an hon. Member should have a secretary to cope with those letters. There are bound to be problems that still arise and constituents will want to get hold of hon. Members. Perhaps they are not permitted to do so. Certainly matters in the pipeline have to be dealt with. Constituents want to know the outcome of problems, whether they relate to immigration, housing or social security. We owe it to them to have some system for dealing with their letters or sending them ministerial answers even if the House has been dissolved.
I should now like to turn to the issue of office equipment. The amendment suggests a figure of £1,000. That is what it has basically cost me to provide the office equipment that I feel is necessary to do my job. Initially, when one comes to the House one is faced with more expense than perhaps might be the case on an ongoing basis. That is a matter that needs to be examined in the future.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as we are reimbursed for our postage and for our telephone expenses and have no outlay on stationery, there is a strong argument for saying that we should not be expected to spend the considerable


amount of money needed to install a typewriter or a dictating machine? This seems one of the strongest amendments that the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Mr. Dubs: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) says that we are reimbursed for our postage and for our telephone calls. If hon. Members can claim that, will he tell me how? I have not discovered, as a regional member, how to be reimbursed.

Mr. Dubs: I take the point.
I turn briefly to the question of severance pay. At least until recently, there were former Members of this House who lost their seats at the last election and who had still not managed to find jobs. Having been a Member of Parliament does not appear to be a qualification for a job. If former Members are to be believed, it appears a major disqualification. Many employers are scared or apprehensive about taking on someone who has been a Member of the House unless he has been a Minister, in which case I understand things are different.
I commend all the amendments on the Order Paper. They would represent a significant improvement in the service that we provide for our constituents and in our ability to do our jobs properly. They would represent a significant advance in fairness towards former Members of the House.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he thought the pay of hon. Members was adequate rather than generous. I agree. I regard that as right and proper. I believe that most hon. Members will agree that it is a privilege to be in this place and that hon. Members should not therefore be surprised if there is some sort of a discount on their salaries.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) compared the salaries of hon. Members of this House with those of highly placed executives in Rio Tinto and Turner and Newall. I doubt whether employees of those firms regard it as a high privilege

to be working for them. We must accept some discount for Members of Parliament. It is also right that hon. Members should show a becoming modesty in talking about rises in their own salaries.
I do not wish to take up too much time in this debate. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I wish to refer to the amendment in my name and the names of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other hon. Members, which provides that hon. Members should be given 10 per cent. of the allowance, amounting to £675, to be devoted entirely to providing some sort of additional pension for their secretarial staff.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already alluded to the sort of work that secretaries are expected to do. He said that they are much more than secretaries; they are personal assistants and research assistants. All hon. Members accept that many of these girls carry out a lot of extra work. The girl who works for me is often in the House at 8 pm, having come to the House at 9 am, simply because I am sitting in a Committee or in this Chamber and she feels that she should wait to ensure that the mail for the day goes out.
My right hon. Friend said that there was a considerable interest—he almost implied a romantic interest—in working in this House. I am sure that working for my right hon. Friend or for any hon. Member is an interesting and stimulating job for any secretary, but it is surely the last argument, when trying desperately to defend what is an indefensible position, to say that this is a nice place in which to work and that all the chaps are jolly and interesting and enjoy being in the House. The discount theory can, and does, apply to hon. Members. I have suggested that I believe that this is right and proper. It is wrong that those who work for us should be subject to the discount to which we are subjected. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that he thought that an annuity was desirable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that we shall not make progress if we continue to ask the Boyle committee to examine the minutiae of a Member of Parliament's life. We should not ask the Boyle committee to investigate the provision of typewriters and travel allowances,


because only hon. Members have an intimate knowledge of their needs.
Tributes have been paid to the Boyle committee. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said that Boyle had been more generous to us than we have been to ourselves. That is true. I am sure that Labour Members do not wish to be backward in coming forward. They will agree that the Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have been prompt in implementing the recommendations. We should be grateful for that.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall confine my remarks to the amendment tabled by myself and 20 other long-serving Members dealing with the severance pay received by hon. Members when they lose their seats. Boyle slipped up when he compared the three months' salary which an hon. Member receives when he loses his seat with the normal State redundancy pay. The committee failed to recognise that there are two types of redundancy. One type of redundancy involves, for example, a lathe operator who loses his job because he is made redundant. That is a serious blow and a major disturbance to his life. However, there might be other factories half a mile down the road to which he can apply for a job. I was a lathe operator many years ago, and I know that such workers can apply for jobs in their own trade. State redundancy pay is a buffer for such an employee.
The other type of redundancy is caused when a market vanishes. For example, a steel worker in Corby or a shipyard worker in Jarrow or Clydeside can be made redundant when a works closes down. He is left with nothing. The market place has disappeared. That is a totally different type of redundancy. That type of redundancy is experienced by a Member of Parliament when he loses his seat, and the Boyle committee should have recognised it.
When an hon. Member loses his seat, he cannot apply for another. One or two such Members are returned at by-elections, but they are few and far between. Fewer than 10 per cent. are returned. Being a Member is not a trade that he can peddle around the country.

One cannot sell one's skills in Committee or in debate and find a job in another industry. For an hon. Member, the market vanishes when he loses his seat. It was wrong of the Boyle committee to compare our three months' salary payment with redundancy payments outside.
We do not receive redundancy pay. The job does not vanish. If we lose a seat, another person moves in and we are therefore not eligible for redundancy payments. Technically, we are not entitled to a penny. We cannot apply to the unfair dismissals tribunal and argue that we are incorruptible, have worked hard and have done nothing wrong. Once a Member is out, he is out. Many of us found that out last May.
Let us compare a Member of Parliament with a teacher. Some teachers were made redundant two years ago when some teacher training colleges were closed. An hon. Member aged 45, who loses his seat after 10 years' service receives three months' pay. A teacher of the same age with the same length of service receives 10/60ths of his annual salary as long-term compensation and one and a half weeks' pay for each year served. In total he receives 23 weeks' pay. The MP receives 12 weeks' pay.
A Member of Parliament, aged 53, with 15 years' service receives 22 weeks' salary. A civil servant of the same age and with the same service record receives 24 weeks' salary, a lump sum of £7,921 and about £50 a week until he is 60 years of age. That is a massive difference. Our amendment does not suggest that we should be treated that well.
A Member of Parliament, aged 62, with 25 years' service receives 26 weeks' pay. A manual worker of the same age and service in a shipyard town receives £3,600 from the State redundacy scheme, and £4,080 from the industry redundancy scheme—about 40 week's pay—as well as £46 a week for two years. In total, the shipyard worker receives £12,000, compared with the Member's £5,000.
Our amendment is modest. It was carefully canvassed. I asked only those hon. Members with safe seats to support it. No one can accuse us of lining our pockets or begging a good future for ourselves, because the majority of those who support the amendment have fought four or five


elections and do not expect to lose their seats. We did not ask hon. Members representing marginal seats to sign the amendment, because that would not have been fair. The proposal is to double the severance pay. Even if that were accepted, a man aged 49 years with 15 years' service would receive only six months' pay when he lost his seat. That is not a fortune when one has to learn a job and a new technique in a totally different industry.
We all know what happened after the last election. I do not want to name names, but hon. Members will know about whom I am talking. Two former MPs living near me are still out of work. One, aged 59, was a highly qualified skilled engineer when he was elected and he became a Minister of State. Nobody wants to know him 15 years later. He teaches two nights a week, and his wife now has to go out to work.
Another ex-Member has been driven to sell his house and open a newsagent's and tobacconist's shop. I am not saying that there is anything wrong in that, but that is what happens. The former hon. Member for Scunthorpe, Mr. John Ellis, was a weather forecaster before he was elected. Trying to find a job as a weather forecaster in Scunthorpe is no laughing matter. He was out of work from May until November. The only job that he could get was in the steelworks—a manual labourer's job. He was working for two months when the steel industry came out on strike. He had some bad luck when he lost by 400 votes in a split election.
I understand that another former Member of Parliament, who is still out of work, trained in his early days to become a priest but eventually became a politician. It is difficult for him to find a job. I have heard of another former Member of Parliament who has eventually found a job after making 187 applications. He is now the press officer to a charity, which probably pays one-quarter or one-third of what he would have earned if he were still in the House.
We are not pleading hard luck cases for ourselves. We have a duty to those who pack up a career and take on a job in a marginal seat. Someone has to represent these marginal seats. We do not need to research deeply to find what has happened to them once they have lost their seats. We tend to forget about

them and say "He has gone, so it is not our problem".
We are not asking for an enormous sum of money. Nobody could say that it would milk the taxpayer or cost a fortune. It would apply, on average, to about 50 people every four and a half years. In the last four general elections about 222 Members lost their seats. The figures are not exactly accurate because of boundary changes, and there are 16 Members who may have lost their seats due to those changes. Of those 222 former Members of Parliament, 134 were Labour Members and 68 were Conservative Members. Labour Members who support the amendment will now be helping Conservative Members who hold marginal seats.
I have served in five Parliaments, and so have many of my colleagues. We have seen colleagues, who have families and mortgages, lose their seats. They have suffered for giving service to the House. They have been thrown on to the scrap heap because of the fluctuations of the electorate.
The cost of our proposal would be about £170,000 every four and a half years. The amendment is just and fair. It would not provide the same amounts as would be received by other redundant workers in the comparisons that we have made. It is the least that the House should award to those who lose their seats. I hope that when the proposal is put to the vote tonight the House will support it.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). If I had been asked to sign it, I would have agreed to do so.
I am not in a marginal seat at present. However, when I started my career as a Member of Parliament I was very much in a marginal seat, with a majority of 123. The severance pay may not be vital to me but I know of cases, such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, where it could mean a great deal. We are not being too demanding in asking for that. It is right that people who have given up a career to serve a constituency should be treated fairly. The amendment does not


ask for more than fair treatment. I certainly support it.
I turn to the main point of my speech. I have always battled for improved conditions in the House; I have never asked for improved pay. When I entered the House I had a locker outside the Members' Dining Room. One day I was kneeling down, trying to put papers in the bottom layer, when a waitress carrying a tray of soup tripped over my feet. The next day I handed in my locker key and asked for a filing cabinet. After six months the Serjeant at Arms gave me a filing cabinet. He put it in what was then the Gentlemen's Cloakroom. I inquired when my secretary could visit it to do the filing, and he said "Never". At the time of my first Adjournment debate I was somewhat annoyed at the lack of facilities in the House.
That was the start of a campaign in which I was joined by several other Members. Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, immense improvements have taken place over the past 14 or 15 years. I pay great tribute to the former Leader of the House—now Lord Peart—who did as much as he could to improve the conditions in the House.
Conditions have improved but, at the same time, work has increased. The letters received and the number of pressure groups have grown enormously. I am not in favour of most of the pressure groups, because they often represent a minority view, which overlays the vast majority of those who do not express an opinion and do not hold those extreme views. However, we have to answer the letters and deal with the issues. We need far more secretarial assistance than ever before.
There is an argument whether a Member of Parliament is a full-time or a part-time Member. I am a full-time Member, but I do overtime in another job, as do many other hon. Members. I spend about 80 hours a week on my constituency work. That is much more than most trade unionists would regard as fair on normal pay.
We need good back-up services. I realise that we cannot spend a great deal of money on new offices. However, I hope that Members will not forget the scheme in Bridge Street, which could make a great deal of difference to our lives and to the lives of our constituents.

Much time and energy have been expended on those buildings, which belong to this country—not to the Government, but to us—and many of them can be restored. We should make a start on that work as as soon as possible.
Our constituents have probably become used to the phrase "Tighten your belts". They are being asked to do that now, and it is not the time to ask for £10,000 or £11,000 a year for secretarial assistance. However, I know that the Members of Parliament in Germany and France receive much better treatment. We need the improved secretarial allowance that has been suggested in the Leader of the House's motion. I shall not be supporting any amendment other than that to which I referred in my opening remarks.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—I have written to him on the matter—not to urge hon. Members to agree to being paid through central arrangements. I have one full-time and one part-time secretary in my constituency. I use the secretarial services in the House. I sometimes have other help. If we have to put together all those different items and send them to a central place, first I do not believe that the secretaries will be paid as quickly and, secondly, the Fees Office staff will have to be increased enormously, and that will require further office space.
If hon. Members want their secretaries to be paid centrally, fair enough, but I hope that the Government will not urge them to do so without taking account of the different circumstances in each constituency.
I turn to the question of office equipment. When I first came into the House my secretary had an old machine that cost £25. I have just bought a £950 electric typewriter. I do not understand the thing, but I know that typewriters have become very expensive. In addition, one needs a duplicating machine if one has a secretary in one's constituency. Many of these factors were considered in the last report, and a recommendation was made then.

Sir Ronald Bell: Perhaps I can intervene for a moment on the question of the payment of secretaries. I understand that the needs of hon. Members vary a good deal according to their


constituencies and their interests, but the convenience of the secretary being paid by the Fees Office is surely quite independent of that, in that she is paid promptly on the last day of the month—just as promptly as we can pay—and she is relieved of all the tedious work involved in calculating her PAYE and national insurance contributions. I use the system myself, and I cannot see the disadvantage to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Hawkins: I would have to gather together all the bits and pieces and get them into the central organisation. Last December I was owed about £1,500 by the Fees Office for various matters. The Fees Office knows that that was the case. If one does not submit the claim by the sixth day of the following month—the Fees Office uses the computer only once or twice a month—one misses out. I submitted my application at about Christmas time, which meant that it would probably be February before it was dealt with.
I believe that payments would be delayed. That is my opinion. It would be far more complicated for me to have to gather together all the information and put it on a piece of paper and send it to the Fees Office in order for the Fees Office to pay it out than it would be to pay the various people involved once I have calculated the hours that they have worked. That is a difference of opinion. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend has had experience of the scheme. I have not. It may work in his case, but I am not at all sure that it would work in mine.
I used to agree that there should be a linkage with another type of person, such as a civil servant, but I now believe that if the salary were to be reviewed, as stated in the Boyle report—I pay great tribute to Lord Boyle and his helpers for the tremendous work that they have done—that might be the best way of proceeding. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to "over-ask" at the present time. We must justify each of our requests for extra payment for our secretaries and ourselves. As a result, I am prepared to support the amendment that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and I hope that the rest of my right hon. Friend's suggestions will be passed.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) in very great detail, but I take issue with him, as one of his hon. Friends did, on the agency scheme that is operated by the Fees Office. In the last Parliament, I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee which brought in that recommendation. I am happy to say that 211 hon. Members now take advantage of the scheme. The advantages are exactly those that were spelt out by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), namely, that at the end of each month the secretary knows exactly how much she will be paid and when she will be paid, and she has none of the hassles that used to be associated with bargaining month by month—as we heard in some of the evidence that was given to the SubCommittee—with an employer about how much she should have, whether or not it was late and what other expenses she had during the course of that month.
Indeed, there is a case, which Boyle has overlooked, for having an additional allowance for office expenses. That is something that is covered in the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). However, with regard to the money that is paid to the secretary, unless the position is an unusual one, in which the hon. Member concerned employs a variety of secretaries in different parts of the country, I believe that there is a case for the Fees Office scheme. I personally urge it on hon. Members throughout the House. I think that we should all participate in it, but I appreciate that there can be no compulsion.
I turn to the substance of the debate. This has been a good debate in which a large number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), have acknowledged the pace of change. I hope that we can get through the debate without the usual attacks in the yellow press about Members of Parliament again getting their snouts in the trough and claiming for themselves what everyone knows to be money to meet the needs of constituents. It is the changing nature of that job which we should consider today. When we consider the additional burden,


which hon. Members on both sides have mentioned, we can see that there is no case at all, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said, in arguing that the alleged glamour of working here in crowded conditions from 8.30 am to 8 pm, as my secretary does, is a just reason why secretaries should be paid less for the job. At Rio Tinto-Zinc or wherever, they would work for less glamorous employers but would be paid the rate for the job.
We must pay people who work here the rate for the job. In order to do that, we must examine what the job is. I believe that this Boyle report, the thirteenth, is disappointing in that it does not accept the extent to which the job has changed. It does not even accept some of the evidence that was contained in the appendices to the twelfth report, when a high proportion of hon. Members filled in a questionnaire about the nature of the work they did.
My particular disappointment relates to the failure to acknowledge the proper position of research assistants in this House. I should like to speak predominantly to my own amendment on that subject. I accept that all hon. Members are different because they are at different ages and times in their parliamentary careers, and also because they represent different constituencies, some very small and some very large. Some have a wide range of interests and some have a small range of interests. That is why I believe that it is wrong to exclude the possibility—or, arguing from Boyle's own figures in the twelfth report, the probability—that a number of hon. Members will employ full-time research assistants.
We know what hon. Members say they do from the figures in the twelfth report. It was suggested there that since 1975, through three successive surveys, the proportion of hon. Members who said that they employed or shared a research assistant had risen from 29 per cent. to the middle forties. In this new Parliament, I believe that the proportion has probably risen to half. There are a large number of new, active, professionally-inclined Members who are more likely to know that they need research assistance and who know where to find it.
That is not to belittle the services of the Library, but they are general and cannot be individual. We know for a

fact, from all our work experience, that the kind of work we are doing here—as members of the Select Committees and providing a constituency service back home, particularly if we attempt to do the job full-time—inevitably entails a variety of work which needs research assistance. In our constituencies we have become ombudsmen of the last resort. We have become trouble-shooters for a variety of local challenges to bureaucracy, both national and local. Some of those matters have to be followed through. If they are to be followed through diligently by a person acting on behalf of the Member, that person could be a full-time research assistant.
We are not asking for anything like the American model, where one person tends the shredder, another person tends the signature writing machine, and so on, We are simply asking for an individual with a range of skills different from, though not necessarily superior to, those of our secretaries to attend to a wide range of matters. Secretaries are now not simply copy typists, taking telephone messages, and so on; they are personal assistants, and they work hard and carry out a difficult, skilled and sophisticated job.
That is acknowledged more widely in other countries than in Britain. Some of the countries that Boyle quoted in his last report bear me out on that. France, Germany and Canada have large allowances that take into account the possibility of full-time research. The European Parliament makes an allowance of £1,200 a month—£14,400 a year—for combined secretarial and research work. I do not think that the figure of £6,000 for secretaries and £4,000 for research assistants that I put forward in my amendment is excessive.
Members of Parliament give an account of their salaries and the salaries of their staff to the Inland Revenue. I declare that I pay around £2,000 a year out of my own pocket for a research assistant. That is a paltry sum. It is difficult for the research assistant whom I employ to live in central London on £40 or £50 a week. I am not pleased about that. The figure in the Boyle report is £1,250 a year. When the employer's contribution of 13 per cent. is deducted, that figure comes down to £1,080. I wonder what sort of people


we can expect to do the job on that sort of salary.
Many Members are now realising how much the nature of the job has changed. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge said that he acknowledged—I take him as a marker—that the nature of the job had changed. He said that he could now see that he needed a full-time secretary. Perhaps, in time, he will realise that he could avail himself of a full-time research assistant. I pay tribute to him for his confession. The Daily Telegraph was wrong to state recently that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge would advance sophisticated arguments against the invention of the wheel. He sees some use in the wheel, and possibly even a wheel attached to a vehicle. A research assistant would tell him that four wheels attached to a vehicle are even better.
All hon. Members have tended during the debate to forget the degree to which the people who work for us have felt wounded by the inadequacy of the Boyle report.
There is an overwhelming case for the bulk of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South. I am in favour of secretaries having the option of being employees of the House, if they so wish. I am in favour of the option and payment of a pension scheme, as has been set out, and of severance pay. However, I believe that the office equipment allowance should be separate. It is wrong to argue with a secretary about sums of money that have been legitimately laid out for other purposes within the secretarial allowance. The secretarial allowance should be set out purely for the payment of secretaries. We should not put secretaries in a position of having to argue about other sums.
I hope that the House will divide on the various amendments and that it will accept some of my amendments and those of my hon. Friends which go a long way towards adding the minor correction that is necessary in order to make the Boyle committee realise that we have come to terms with our working conditions and that we are making certain that the people who serve us do not suffer by it.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, this has been a good debate, and some good experience has been brought before the House. I have learnt a good deal about how Members feel about the conditions under which they are forced to work.
I thought that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was trying to have his cake and eat it when he pointed out that in general the Boyle report was generous and a great stride forward. Many hon. Members, not simply new Members, believe that there is an unreal atmosphere in the House. When hon. Members have been here for many months or years, they seem to accept a different kind of attitude towards efficiency, standards of accommodation, standards of research and secretarial help from that which they would accept outside.
I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North about replacing Boyle with a group of men and women, perhaps from business or from trade unions. I am not trying to make a political point, but if my union leader, Mr. Clive Jenkins, organised our secrtaries, we would find ourselves in a different position. I am sure that salaries would rise quickly. I am at a loss to understand why that has not happened before, because the sort of people we employ are not merely secretaries. They are people who, if they were employed in any other occupation, would be called personal assistants or political assistants, and they would be given a great deal of trust. In outside occupations they could earn double the salary.
Although the amendment in my name was not selected, I am in general support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and most of the other amendments, because they would take us, struggling perhaps, screaming perhaps, a little towards the twentieth century.
The Leader of the House was correct when he spoke of the central importance of the House in checking the Executive. However, I do not follow his logic. If he seriously believes that our job is to check the Executive, we must move into


the twentieth century in the way in which we carry out our jobs. If we are to check the Executive, and if the parliamentary processes have changed and are changing, I believe that a full-time research assistant and full-time secretarial help is the minimum that we should expect.
I do not believe that we should follow the American system of employing countless staff. However, we must change from our present system of existing on a shoestring, overcrowding, and so on. Perhaps Front Bench Members should spend more time visiting their Back Bench colleagues and seeing for themselves the conditions in which they have to work. I do not want to stress the conditions in which we work. I merely draw attention to the conditions in which our secretaries and assistants have to work. If we do not get the right back-up, if we do not get the right type of expertise to work for us, we shall be firing on 60 per cent., 40 per cent. or 20 per cent. of efficiency. That is not what the people sent us to this place to do. The people want value for money. They want us to be first-rate, well-organised politicians. They do not want us to be second-rate amateurs. The minimum that we should expect is a full-time secretary in the constituency, a full-time secretary in this place and a full-time research officer, and that is not going towards the American system.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the research facility. I hope that we divide this evening. I shall be voting for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South. I am sorry to see that the supporters of the amendment whose names appear on the Order Paper do not include Conservative Members. Having had conversations with Conservative Members, I am sure that there is a great deal of support within their ranks for going further than the Boyle committee.
There are some of us on the Back Benches who have not been in this place all that long who believe that there is collusion—my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South mentioned this—between the Front Benches. The Front Benches get out of touch with their Back Benches. That has been highlighted by dramatic results in the past week or two on the Government Benches. I genuinely believe that the Front Benches let us

down in terms of the standards that m e should expect. It may be that ministerial office and the special privileges that go with being on the Front Bench on either side of the Chamber lead our right hon. and hon. Friends to get out of touch with the conditions that the average Back Bench Member has to tolerate.
Many of us depend for our research on the good will and the covert subsidy of American universities, which send to this place a large number of good American students. They add a great deal of effort to our work. A House that has to depend on that type of subsidy must take itself in hand. Although that has been a useful contribution, it illustrates that many hon. Members need research help. They get it through different American exchange programmes. I can think of three of or four major university exchange programmes that are acting in that way. I welcome that help. Any help is welcome. However, is that the way in which a modern Member of Parliament should be working? Should he be depending on second and third-year American undergraduates to provide his or her research facility? Surely, that should not be the position.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not regard this as a party issue. I hope that they will not worry about upsetting the Leader of the House or their Front Bench. I hope that they will vote for the amendment to take one short step into the twentieth century so that the people get what they pay for and what they vote for, namely, a first-class, efficient legislature that can do the prodigious job that is demanded of it in the 1980s.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I shall not take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) as I want to follow a self-imposed 10-minute rule.
We must be the only group of workers, organised, unorganised or disorganised, that tries to negotiate wages and conditions in public. We know what happens in private. We know what happens in theory. However, I know of no other group that tries to negotiate terms and conditions of employment in this fashion. I have no complaint about that, except


to say that it is a most inefficient way of doing this.
In principle and in theory, we decide our own conditions and terms of employment. In practice, hon. Members, individually or collectively, make representations to their party leaders, who then convey those recommendations to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House also receives individual representations. He goes to the Cabinet of the day to negotiate on our behalf. He returns with an answer that he passes to the two leaders of the two main parties. That filters back to us and a package deal is delivered to be debated across the Floor of the House.
The discussion takes place not around a table but across a debating chamber. We know that in theory we are negotiating with ourselves, but in practice we are negotiating with the Government of the day at second, third or fourth hand at best. No self-respecting trade union and no self-respecting employers' organisation or professional organisation would accept that archaic way of negotiating salaries and conditions. However, we do our best.
For about 15 years I have taken part in the shadow boxing, the pressure and the ritual dances that occur from time to time. I have joined with colleagues and negotiated with six or seven Leaders of the House. All those Leaders of the House have given freely of their time and attention. From some that was practically all we were given. The motto of some Leaders of the House has been "Treat them mean and keep them keen. Keep them busy and they won't be on our backs." There were always various reasons—sometimes national reasons—why they could not do what each said he wanted to do. In any event, they were not able to provide what we asked. I trust that the present Leader of the House—I was hoping to get his attention for a moment but, never mind, I shall embarrass him anyway—will not be embarrassed when I say that he has given rather more than time and attention and has produced a fair package deal.

Mr. Sheerman: Not yet.

Mr. Ogden: It is not a bad deal. My hon. Friend has not been in this place for quite as long as I have. Bearing in mind some of the deals that we have

had in the past, the deal now before us is not too bad. As one Northern comedian would say, "I like it not a lot, but I like it." It is not bad as far as it goes, but I wish to make two suggestions.
First, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) refers to car mileage allowances and the possibility of claiming such allowances for parliamentary duties in any part of the United Kingdom. The House should put on record our appreciation of the efficiency, the courtesy and the speed with which the Accountant, Mr. Wilkin, and his colleagues in the Fees Office deal with the terrific variety and complexity of Members' constituency claims. They are helpful in every way. They work according to the criteria. Were other Departments of Government half as efficient or helpful as our Fees Office, Governments would be better serviced. The Fees Office staff is not only efficient but diligent.
Two years ago I used a House of Commons rail warrant for a journey between Charing Cross station and Folkestone on parliamentary duties. Some weeks later the Fees Office asked me why. It said "Ogden is Liverpool, West Derby. Why was he travelling from Charing Cross, London, down to Folkestone away from his constituency on parliamentary duties?" The warrant was challenged. The journey took place on the day of the Scottish referendum, and my colleagues and I wanted to get as far away as possible. We had been invited by the Department of Trade to go to the St. Margaret's Bay coastguard station in the constituency of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). We were Members of a Committee on a Bill concerning coastguards, pilots and the merchant service, and as the Department of Trade officers did not arrive to put us on the train I had used a rail warrant. However, I was able to persuade the Fees Office that I was on parliamentary duties.
Let me give another example with a less satisfactory result so far. Recently I journeyed by road from Liverpool to meet two constituents who are presently the guests of Her Majesty in Preston prison. Their families live in my constituency. I went to see those men about the problems of their families and any


problems they had in the prison. Naturally, I travelled from Liverpool along the motorway—the best communications system in the North-West, as the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) can confirm. I met my constituents in the governor's and the deputy governor's office. Certainly I assumed that the governor's office, as part of a Government establishment, was part of a department of regional or local government.
When I returned home, perhaps foolishly, I put on my claim "Liverpool to Preston", placed an asterisk at the side and explained that I had visited two of my constituents in Preston prison. The Fees Office told me that its interpretation of the criteria was that the journey I had made was not within the criteria. I challenged that decision and asked whether that meant that I could go to the Home Office statistical department in Surrey and claim mileage allowance but that I could not claim for a visit to my constituents in Preston prison. I asked whether this meant that I could claim for a visit to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea, which is a regional department of the Government, about my constituents' driving licences but that I could not claim for a visit to them in prison to discuss their family problems.
Will the Leader of the House consider this and agree that a prison governor's office is part of a Government Department?
I put forward those examples so that the right hon. Gentleman can consider whether he should widen the criteria to include places such as prisons and other places one must visit on Parliamentary duties.
My last point is about severance pay. I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), when he referred to the list of hon. Members who had signed the amendment, say that he considered that we were all from safe seats. I think that he meant that we were all safe from Conservatives or Liberals. I am sure he did not mean that we were safe from other pressures. I will not go into detail except to say that there is a time and a tide and I hope that I may decide the time and the tide. I do not want to be in the House when I am 90 years old, but if anyone tries to push me

out before my time I shall certainly go with a bang and not a whimper. Severance pay is being compared with rates of redundancy payments. If we lose our seats, we can perhaps be re-adopter' for the European Assembly.
The Leader of the House has always displayed a certain independence in the Chamber. He is certainly displaying that independence now, because he is not taking a blind bit of notice of what I am saying.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am listening every word.

Mr. Ogden: I do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. Perhaps he can agree that hon. Members would be strengthened in their determination to resist outside pressure and remain independent if they were aware that if everything went wrong and they were thrown out by their constituents or the constituency party there would be a period in which they could adjust. That is one of the reasons why this modest amendment would strengthen the independence of Back Benchers. Now that the Leader of the House is on the Front Bench, I hope that he has not forgotten what he used to say when he sat on the Back Benches.
The Leader of the House has brought forward a reasonable package deal. It is capable of improvement and I hope it will be improved in years to come. However, it is not a bad deal, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: On looking at the report and on considering the reaction of the Leader of the House to it, it seems to me that we started the wrong way round, We have looked at a tremendous amount of detail, without any agreement on broader questions. What do we in Parliament and what do the public expect us to have by way of assistance in carrying out our jobs? My impression is that the public at large—certainly constituents to whom I have spoken—are amazed when they realise how badly equipped we are to do the job that we were elected to do. My impression is that we are expected to have more facilities than we do.
If we start from the presumption that we want to be properly equipped for our job, many of the detailed matters that


we are arguing about—we have done this on at least three occasions, and if we are not careful we shall continue to do so year after year—will not get us far in resolving the matter.
We are in Parliament to deal with constituency problems, to play a role in the life of the nation and to be aware of, and increasingly involved in, international affairs. We are supposed to do all these things without an individual office, without research or administrative assistance and with a minimum allowance for a secretary who is not too well paid. If we were asked how we were running the country as Members of Parliament and answered that we were doing it sitting at desks in corridors, with one lowly paid secretary and no other assistance, people would not believe us. In fact, they do not believe us. Part of our problem is that the public assume that we are much better paid than we are and have much better facilities than we do. I do not think that the Boyle report has taken cognisance of that.
What facilities do we need? The public would expect us to have proper secretarial service in the House and in our constituencies. Most people think that they can get in touch with us in the constituency through secretarial help. I appreciate that this is not proposed in the Boyle report or in the modest amendments before us, but most of the constituents whom we serve—60,000-odd in most cases—expect us to have a secretary to help us with the mass of material with which we have to cope at Westminster and a secretary to help with the problems that are generated in our constituencies. I am amazed to hear some hon. Members talk as though constituents are a problem, a nuisance, and should be got rid of. Increasingly, people regard Members of Parliament as approachable people who should be able to respond to personal problems.
Another basic requirement is more personal research assistance. It is no good comparing ourselves with the Americans. To talk about having nothing or, as the Americans have, up to 40 personnel is ludicrous. All that we are talking about is a modest, sensible minimum provision to enable each Member of Parliament to do his job.
What is the minimum? Personally, I should have thought that two personal assistants was a sensible answer. I appreciate that this will not be the case for every hon. Member. If some hon. Members do not want two personal assistants, there is no need for them to have them. If others need them, they should be able to have them. We should not think in terms of everybody having them or nobody having them. Instead, we should think in terms of enabling Members of Parliament to do their job properly.
Many hon. Members—myself included—could make full and proper use of personal assistants to help with their duties on Select Committees, Standing Committees and in the to day-to-day work in the House. They could help in developing attitudes and opinions on future policy.
Most people would assume that we would have a couple of secretaries—one in Westminster and one in the constituency—and two assistants, as well as a proper office. I would defend those requirements to my constituents, because most of them would assume that we already had that anyway. There are not many hon. Members who would go to their constituents and tell them that they cannot deal with their problems because they are far too busy. Their constituents would assume that they had the facilities to cope with the work load.
The proposals before us make that modest objective ludicrous. What is proposed is nothing at all like that. Even the amendments contain nothing like that. They would enable Members of Parliament to have one secretary and one assistant. That is the great leap into the '80s for Members of Parliament—a secretary and an assistant. If any hon. Member can honestly say that, having been elected to help govern the country, he does not need a secretary and an assistant, how on earth does he see his job as a Member of Parliament? I would not dare to go to my constituents and tell them that I did not need a secretary or an assistant. I would not have the gall to say that. Hon. Members must cope with an enormous amount of stuff that is thrown at them. They must be prepared to meet Ministers, serve on Standing and Select Committees and do all their constituency work. They do all this without any assistance. It almost defies


belief. It seems that the proposals in the amendments are very modest in terms of what the public would hope and expect us to do if we are not simply to be Back Bench hacks who do not actually do a job or cannot contribute to the work of the country.
Even more important is the position of Front Bench Opposition spokesmen. I do not know how they cope. Their facilities, as far as I know, are the same as those of Back Bench Members. I am sure that the public who come to listen to our debates from the Gallery do not realise that when an Opposition spokesman goes to the Dispatch Box he is thinking on his feet and has virtually no back-up. He does not have a bevy of people behind him preparing his briefs If people in that Gallery realised that, they would be appalled. People think that Opposition spokesmen are backed up by a galaxy of assistants. These Front Bench spokesmen are expected to reply on the same day to ministerial statements, and they are expected to speak on virtually any subject at all, yet they do this with a minimum of benefit from assistants.
I deal next with the question of travel. I was amazed when I entered Parliament to discover that there was no assistance at all for travelling around the country. I was amazed when I realised that we are supposed to understand what is going on in the country by sitting here in London. If we want to go to Scotland or Northern Ireland, we have to pay the cost out of our own pockets. We all know the cost of train fares these days, let alone the expense of hotel bills. It means that every time we want to go out and about in Britain for a day and a night it will cost us between £60 and £70. People whom I meet assume that, as Members of Parliament, we can travel around the country to find out what is going on and to understand different points of view.
Because of the financial arrangements, the present system reinforces the centralisation of influence in London. It reinforces the obligation of lobby groups to lobby in London, There is absolutely no point in encouraging hon. Members to see what it is like in Northern Ireland. In fact, there is every reason not to go there. There is an absolute discouragement—the cost of such a visit.
Some hon. Members may take a different view on this matter, but we have a

responsibility to people in the country who expect us to understand and observe what is going on. There is a difference between listening to our colleagues' views and observing events on the ground, in places such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Merseyside.
One of the most disappointing aspects to me is the way in which the role of the Member of Parliament in contributing to and understanding aspects of life in the different parts of the United Kingdom is totally dismissed. Apparently this is something that Members of Parliament should not be assisted to do. So we go on as we started—everything is concentrated in London and seen from London. No attempt is made to spread out and take a view from the provinces.
We need two secretaries and two assistants to enable us to travel around Britain, let alone travel around Western Europe. As a nation, we are incredibly insular. Very often politicians hardly dare imagine that Western Europe, let alone the rest of the world, exists. The thought of actually travelling to Europe as a Member of Parliament is enough to send shivers through some hon. Members. Why should we not be encouraged to see what is happening politically on the other side of the Channel?
If the problem is one of accountability, I would much sooner accept total and open accountability, with total publication, than continue our present system. I would welcome the publication of hon. Members' income tax returns. I have no objection whatever to that. If I had my way, Parliament would pay to publish in The Times once a month the claims for expenses of Members of Parliament. I would have every Member file a return showing how he spent his money, what he claimed and for what purpose.
It is far more important that hon. Members do a good job than that they hide behind the argument that money cannot he given because some hon. Members might "fiddle". There is a feeling in the House that some hon. Members would abuse expenses. Surely the answer to that is open accountability. I would defend a trip to Scotland during the arguments on devolution. I think that my constituents would expect me to go to Scotland. I would defend a visit to Northern Ireland, because I think that


that is very important. Every hon. Member should go to Northern Ireland. When I went there I was shocked and amazed by what I saw. It would do many hon. Members good to see conditions there at first hand. The question of accountability is a red herring. We should not hide behind the problem of exactly who employs whom. That is a detail. The real question is whether we should have decent facilities.
There are many detailed issues on which we all feel a measure of concern. One is the fact that if an hon. Member's wife and family come to London he must pay for his children out of his own pocket. As a family man with three children, I think that that is ludicrous. It means that I must pay £30 or £40 if my children want to come and see me. Tremendous problems have arisen over the transferability of pensions. There are difficulties in setting up an office. We have to find a few hundred pounds out of our own pockets to buy a typewriter.

Mr. Barry Porter: Did anyone ask the hon. Gentleman to volunteer?

Mr. Woolmer: That is exactly the type of facetious and ludicrous comment that one has come to expect from the hon. Gentleman. I have been waiting for some time for him to make such a remark. The public voted to put us here. We do our job without any assistance. Our hands are tied behind our backs. It is difficult to serve the public in that situation. The public surely do not expect us to put our hands in our pockets in order to buy a typewriter. In my constituency a manual worker might come out of a textile factory with £40 or £50 a week. A typewriter would cost four times more than his wages. The hon. Gentleman is arrogant to suggest that no one has asked us to volunteer. That is not the point.
Are the public willing to assist hon. Members adequately? I do not say that we should be excessively assisted. With honour and with respect, we can tell the public that a secretary and personal assistant, an office and the ability to travel around the United Kingdom are the minima that we should receive in order to do our job properly.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When I came to this House in May, my first impresion of the Chamber was one of polished professionalism, backed up by several amateurish services, particularly in terms of secretarial assistance. However, the Library services of the House are noted for their excellence. In my arduous task in coming to the House for the first time, I looked forward to the Boyle report with hope. All Opposition Members who have spoken today have looked forward to important changes. Such changes would affect the quality of representation that we can offer to our constituents.
I am not particularly interested in several parts of the report, particularly those that deal with the levels of our salaries. We are adequately rewarded. I stated my position when we last voted on this issue. I am not interested in the levels of Ministers' salaries. Indeed, I could put forward a strong argument for halving those salaries, particularly in the Department of Industry. That argument is reinforced whenever I consider how that Department is affecting my constituency. Nor am I particularly interested in the level of expenses for peers. I look forward to the day when that place will no longer exist. Our problems of accommodation will then be resolved.
I have considered the comments of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and those of other hon. Members who have, on occasions, given me a kind word. They have told me that that problem will be resolved only with great difficulty. When the House divides, I have to sprint from Dean's Yard in order to vote. It is appalling that we should be put into such a position just because we have public duties to perform in our offices.
I earlier watched the television programme "Nationwide", because my secretary was speaking on it. She adequately savaged the argument that is sometimes used by hon. Members to the effect that the current provision is satisfactory. She drew the attention of millions of viewers to the deplorable conditions in which secretaries have to work in this House. She was not referring to me. I hand my secretarial allowance to her in its entirety.


I believe that every hon. Member should do so.
Research allowances, severance pay, conditions for secretaries and travel facilities were effectively commented upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). Those conditions have an effect on the vital and important services that hon. Members perform. It is impossible for an hon. Member to operate with a part-time secretary. An hon. Member may have more than one secretary. He may have a second secretary in his constituency. However, one also hears stories about secretaries who work in intolerable conditions for long hours. One secretary spends 12 hours a day working for two hon. Members. Each hon. Member is unwilling to pay that secretary her due. It is deplorable that hon. Members should engage in such disreputable activities.
The amount of work that secretaries are asked to do varies. Certain constituencies carry a heavy work load. In marginal seats hon. Members have to be particularly assiduous in their duties. In those constituencies hon. Members are subject to an enormous amount of correspondence. I think particularly of the marginal seats in Lancashire. I came from such a seat until I was elected to represent Workington. In industrial areas of Lancashire, hon. Members and their secretaries are overworked. Those hon. Members should be adequately funded for their secretarial assistance. That applies also to many of the great Labour-held seats.
I was told today about three Conservative Members who share one secretary. I hire a secretary full-time. It therefore appears that some constituencies—particularly Conservative ones—have a lighter burden of work. Perhaps that is only natural and perhaps it results from the nature of those who live there. Constituents in Conservative-controlled areas may be perfectly articulate and capable of presenting their own cases. They may be able to resolve their own problems. That is not the case in many Labour constituencies.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman has made several interesting points. However, I feel that he should explain further. Is he suggesting that a seat should be de-

fined as marginal and that an hon. Member should be paid a supplement according to his majority or work load? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the relative work loads of Conservative and Labour Members. However, those of my hon. Friends who represent rural areas invariably have large constituencies, with populations of about 80,000 or 90,000. If we are to play a game of statistics and if we are to worry about who gets the most letters, I should point out that they will receive the greater volume of correspondence.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I must assume that the three Conservative Members to whom I have already referred have a very light work load. I do not suggest that hon. Members who represent marginal seats should be more effectively reimbursed. I am simply trying to establish that some hon. Members have a heavy work load and that they should be given the secretarial assistance and aid necessary to carry out their tasks professionally and effectively.
We should run two schemes for secretarial assistance. One scheme would be based on the Fees Office, as it is at the moment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) pointed out, secretaries could be put directly on to the payroll of the House. Secretaries would be hired at the market price and not at the salary of £4,835.88 per annum. That is the amount that would be left after suitable deductions had been made from the salary of £5,500 that has been suggested by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the report. For the sum of £4,500 one could get a clerk in London. However, one could not obtain a competent secretary who would be capable of handling the work load of an hon. Member. Outside the Houses of Parliament such a secretary would have adequate severance pay provisions and quite possibly a pension provision.
The second scheme would offer a secretarial allowance to be paid, as at present, to those hon. Members who, for their own reasons, want a cash sum paid to them as opposed to putting their secretary on the payroll of the House. There would be a major difference between the two payments. I believe that the secretary who is on the payroll or is paid through


the Fees Office should be paid at the market rate but that the secretarial lump should be substantially less. That would be an incentive to secretaries to ensure that the hon. Member employing them put them on the payroll of the House and an incentive for hon. Members to take a more responsible attitude to hiring secretaries. We hear too many stories about secretaries hired under the most spurious arrangements who suffer in second-rate working conditions.
Most hon. Members who use the services of research assistants are helped in some way. That may happen through their outside commercial interests. They may have contacts in American and other overseas universities. Others may have outside incomes. In passing, let me say that some of us gave up substantial outside incomes to enter the House. We do not seek to see them replaced, but we believe that we should have the back-up of fair and reasonable service conditions for the people whom we hire to help us carry out our work.
Other hon. Members are helped in their research through trade unions. That is perfectly commendable. More power to the hon. Member who is able to arrange support. Others make arrangements out of parliamentary income direct, as I have had to do on a number of occasions. Others are able to draw on voluntary assistance, which often is the best that is available.
The arrangements are biased in favour of hon. Members with outside interests and incomes and those who come from the academic world. Those of us who do not are at a clear disadvantage. We are asking only for certain rights. Our requirement is as great as that of other hon. Members. Over the past months in my constituency I have endeavoured to build up a team of voluntary research assistants to help me shadow the effect of each Department on my constituency.
I propose that the Fees Office should be required to hire, on our behalf, research assistants, who are vital and important to our work and can offer a great deal to an assiduous Member of Parliament. I do not suggest that they require severance payments or pension schemes. The requirement for a particular research assistant depends on the expertise

that an hon. Member wishes to draw on during debates, Standing Committees or Select Committees, and they will therefore be fairly mobile.
The payment of a flat sum of £1,250 is mentioned, but I suggest that it should be up to a maximum payment of £6,500, with the hon. Member making a 121 per cent. contribution. That would ensure that hon. Members did not hoard research assistants whom they did not wish to use at the time but had other reasons for keeping. If hon. Members were required to pay 8 per cent. of the difference between £1,250 and £6,500, they would be responsible for contributing about £800 a year to the wage of the researcher, on which I understand there would be tax relief.
I turn finally to travel arrangements. Much has been said about the limitations imposed on hon. Members and their families, particularly children. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley referred to the problems of being unable to bring our children to London when Parliament is sitting.
My wife sports a wad of rail passes, of which one has been used. Those passes are relatively useless because of the problems of bringing our family to London. Her alternative is to come to London with me in the car and spend a week here, which is also impossible.
I understand that every year British Rail receives a £381 million public services obligation as a subsidy from the Government. I do not see that it would be any more difficult to give Members of Parliament vouchers to travel throughout the United Kingdom. British Rail would still receive the subsidy, and it would ease our problems.
I hope that the Government will take note of the feelings expressed in the debate. Since being elected I have become aware that most new hon. Members, certainly on the Labour Benches, have many grievances. I ask the Leader of the House to bear our criticisms in mind.

Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to speak about the unique position that our secretaries occupy.
I have employed a number of secretaries in my time and have always felt that my secretary was an essential part of


my job. I have tried to employ ladies who I believed were more intelligent than I so that they could do much of the work that needed to be done and at the same time protect my back. Certainly outside the House that is an important part of a secretary's duties.
Since coming to the House I have been horrified at what we ask our secretaries to do—and, indeed, the conditions under which we demand that they work. In my experience, few secretaries outside the House would tolerate the hours and, worse still, the conditions and pressure under which they are required to work.
The most recent example of which I can think is the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. I had to deal with substantial correspondence on this matter, in addition to the normal correspondence. Members of Parliament representing Tory rural constituencies have enormous mail bags. The more articulate the constituents, the more letters they write. More important, they do not want stereotyped answers. They want answers topped and tailed in the Member's own hand and in the necessary phraseology to enable them to see that they are treated as special persons. This means that stereotyped letters are less likely to be acceptable to the more articulate, who otherwise write back and draw one's attention to one's shortcomings. That puts tremendous pressure on secretaries as well as on Members. Consequently, to do the job effectively we require good secretaries. I say that without fear of contradiction.
One of the first matters with which I became involved in Parliament was to ensure that my secretary would have a pension. Good human relationships, which is what industrial relations are about, must begin with the first person whom one employs. That person is one's secretary. Whether one runs large organisations with thousands of employees, as I have, or whether one employs a secretary, as I do in the House, the position is the same. Good human relations means an understanding of cares, worries, frustrations and fears. Secretaries are concerned that their Members may not be their boss after the next election. They are concerned that their pay and conditions are not easily negotiated or obtained. Therefore, I welcome some aspects of the report, especially the movement towards research facilities.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have missed the back-up of an adequate personal assistant and research facilities. That may be a shortcoming on my part. I am prepared to face that as a criticism. I enjoyed that facility for many years. Now I miss it.
Recently I took up two projects, one of which related to a whole industry. I was the only Government supporter with any experience of it. However, I found to my horror that I had to do all the research work and investigations. In the past I handed the work over to a personal assistant, a secretary or researcher seconded to me for the purpose.
I wonder whether our constituents expect us to do an effective job without the proper tools. I was never afraid to say to shareholders "If you want the job done, you must be prepared to foot the bill." I found that if I put the matter straight to shareholders they took it. They believed that one was trying to do a good job. All Members of Parliament, whatever their political persuasion, try to do a good job on behalf of their constituents. I therefore welcome the small beginning and assistance towards research facilities.
Surely, in this place of all places, we should start with ourselves. Standards, if we expect them of others, should begin with ourselves. Every Member of Parliament could start by looking into a mirror and asking "Am I setting an example in the way that I treat my secretary and look after her or him?"—and there are male secretaries in this establishment. If we asked that question, perhaps there would be fewer moans. It may be said that my secretary is one of the shop stewards. She probably is.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of everything that he has said so far, support the amendment which is designed to make small provision available for pensions for secretaries of Members of Parliament and which is supported by many Government supporters?

Mr. Walker: I intended to say this in conclusion. The hon. Gentleman preempted my conclusion. I intended to say that the amendment was good and that it fulfilled a necessary requirement.
We should be required to set standards here. Some people outside—and, let us face it, there are some, on whatever side


of the political fence they may be—who have grave doubts about the integrity of people in this place. I suggest that we start with ourselves and say "This is what we are doing and this is how we propose to do it." In my case I am already doing it, and I suggest that this is something that all other hon. Members should look at carefully. I recommend support of the amendment.

Mr. Reg Race: I shall try to confine my brief remarks to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) concerning the amount of the secretarial and research allowance, because, although a tribute has been paid to the Boyle committee for its report, I happen to believe that on this item it has been very lax in the way it has produced its figures. There is no justification in the Boyle report for the figures which it has produced of £5,500 for the secretarial allowance and £1,250 for the research allowance. It could well have been argued from the position advanced in the report that the former figure should have been £20,000 a year, because there is no reasoning in the report to show that the figure of £5,500 rather than any other is the right figure.
I want to draw the attention of the House to some specific comparisons which the Boyle committee ought to have looked at when considering the figures for secretarial and research allowances.
If the secretary to a Member of Parliament is compared with grades in the Civil Service, which I think many lion. Members would find an appropriate comparison, it will be seen that a senior personal secretary, including London weighting and a Civil Service proficiency payment on grade B, which is a minimum proficiency payment, receives remuneration of between £5,105 at the bottom of the scale and £6,075 at the top of the scale from 1 January 1980. The remuneration which will accrue to a Member of Parliament's secretary under the proposals in the Boyle report, assuming a salary of £5,500, minus the employer's national insurance contribution, leaving a residue in gross terms to the secretary of £4,824, produces a figure which for

secretaries will be £281 a year less than that of a comparative Civil Service grade at the bottom and as much as £1,251 a year less at the top of the scale. Therefore, I argue that the Boyle committee has not looked at appropriate comparisons in providing this figure.
Indeed, I could go further and say that not only has the Boyle report not made appropriate comparisons with the Civil Service but it has not compared the proposed rates for secretaries with the rate of pay of clerical and secretarial staff in the economy as a whole. Referring to the Government's own new earnings survey in this regard, it is found that the top decile for full-time non-manual women workers in April 1979, which is the latest new earnings survey, was £97·80 a week. Under the Boyle proposals, after employer's national insurance had been deducted, secretaries would be receiving, assuming that they received the whole of the secretarial allowance, the sum of £92·76 per week. Clearly, if Lord Boyle had made a comparison with the earnings of the top 10 per cent. of full-time women non-manual workers, he would have found that his proposal was lacking.
I refer the Minister to the specific example of market rates in London, which has been alluded to by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The question of market rates in London is significant. The new earnings survey gives examples of non-manual women workers in London being paid substantially more than the Boyle proposals. Again referring to April 1979, the figure for the top quartile of full-time non-manual women in Westminster is £113·90 per week. That, again, is substantially in advance of the Boyle proposals.
I am driven to the conclusion that the review body has neither considered proper comparisons for the pay of secretarial staff in the House of Commons nor justified the choice of £5,500 as the basis on which full-time secretaries should be paid. I can only conclude that Boyle's points of reference are drawn from thin air.
A comparison of the lackadaisical way in which Boyle has gone about his report with the serious work done by the Pay Research Unit and the Clegg Commission does not stand up to scrutiny. I agree


with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have complained about the way in which these matters are settled. The review body is incapable of making proper economic and social judgments about the relative work of people employed in this place. The report is not a step in the right direction.
In real terms, the proposed secretarial allowance gives no improvement to secretaries and research assistants on the maximum. I have calculated the difference between the secretarial allowance for the financial year 1979–80 and that proposed for 1979–81, and I am driven to the conclusion that the secretarial allowance has simply been increased in line with the rate of inflation. It has been increased by 21·6 per cent. gross, slightly in advance of the current rate of price inflation, but that ignores the increase in national insurance employer's contributions which will come into force soon. The secretarial allowance will only mark time with inflation and not be advanced in real terms. I believe that it should be far higher.
It is a good trade union principle, and one which I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) support in a rather different way, that if an employer brings someone on to the labour market he should bear the cost of doing so and providing the tools to do the job. That is an elementary form of social relations in our society, and the House should stick to that principle.
Many hon. Members, wittingly or unwittingly, are breaking the law which relates to contracts of employment and the conditions under which secretaries and research assistants are employed. Many Members do not supply their secretaries with contracts of employment in accordance with the terms of the 1972 Act. The argument for central employment is even more substantial than if that was not the case. It is another strong reason for increasing the facilities for secretaries and bringing them within the scope of the law.
The conditions under which many secretaries and research assistants work in this place are deplorable. We have to improve their conditions of work, both their actual remuneration and their physical conditions of work. The House should also remember that Crown immunity is given in this place. We can-

not prosecute anyone under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act owing to that immunity. Hon. Members may wish to remember that fact when they vote on the amendments. This would be a method of making some adjustment in connection with the problems of Crown immunity and the lack of health and safety facilities in this place.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A matter that worries me is that of grants to former Members. This could produce some bizarre results. I agree very much with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is not present at the moment, but I understand that none of the hon. Members who are signatories to the amendment gave evidence to the Boyle committee. I am on the hon. Gentleman's side, so Opposition Members need not worry.
The grants to former Members proposed by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and his colleagues apply only to those who have, accidentally so to speak, lost their seats. To get the grant, Members must stand for re-election and be defeated. There may be many reasons for Members not standing again. They may have been ousted by a coup in their constituency. Their only chance of getting redundancy pay would be to stand again as an independent Labour, an independent Conservative or—

Mr. Garel-Jones: An independent Liberal. There are even a few of those.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: There is also the sad case—this has been seen by many hon. Members who have served in the House—of hon. Members, on both sides, continuing to serve when their physical capacity to do so has gone. We have seen hon. Members virtually doddering into their seats simply because they could not afford to retire.
The problem would be overcome it all retiring Members were included within the terms of the second resolution of the House of 20 December 1971. Otherwise, the absurd situation could arise in which Opposition Members would select a safe Labour seat, probably in Yorkshire or Durham, put down their names as independent candidates, pay their


deposit of £150 and stand for that seat in the confident expectation that they would not win, and thus be able to accept their redundancy payment.
The same situation could arise on the Government side of the House. An hon. Member might put forward his name as an independent candidate for South Fylde, where there is a majority of 30,000, simply to collect his redundancy pay. This seems an anomaly that should be resolved. Unless it is, we could face some undignified situations in which elderly Members, who should have retired, could not afford to do so. This is a matter of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the house should take cognisance.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I have heard much today from more recent arrivals among hon. Members than myself about the inadequacy of facilities in the House. I agree. I would vote for all the amendments that seek to improve facilities. But hon. Members will perhaps consider the form in which we seek to improve the quality of the amenities available.
We must have adequate allowances, paid under general guidance rules, and we must have adequate accountability. The allowances must be controlled by a Select Committee and not by officials of the House or the Boyle committee. I suggest that flexibility because I do not believe that our present facilities are unduly restrictive. We have heard that one secretary has just been supplied with an electric typewriter. When my secretary was first given an electric typewriter, many years ago, she was the only girl with such a machine in her room. Before long the supply of electric typewriters began to spread, and now they are commonplace in the House.
For about 15 years I have used a computer terminal either at home or in the House. It has been useful and I have done much work on it. Nobody suggests that computer terminals should be provided.
I am trying to interest some of my hon. Friends in purchasing a word processor. I do not know what the Inland Revenue would think of that in terms of an allowable expense. Such an expense should be allowable, but we can cope within our allowance. For goodness sake, let us not

decide that officials must judge whether our secretaries are capable of using such a machine. Let us leave the discretion with hon. Members. The House of Commons should not be allowed to tell us what type of electric machine we should use.
The question of employing additional staff has arisen. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) rightly said that in the House of Commons we should be able to walk up and down the corridors mumbling questions such as "What are we to do about Cyprus?" I agree with him. The place works on the basis of contacts between individual Members and our wider relationships with our constituents. Staff should not come between hon. Members or between us and our constituents. I am sure that, properly used, the staff would not attempt to do that. However, in this Parliament the constituencies are small. They are smaller than in Congress, for instance. We should try to develop the services in the House and in the constituencies so that the vital personal framework is maintained.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) was right to emphasise the human dangers in relations with our staff. The 635 Members of Parliament have many different backgrounds and many degrees of absence of mind, of social conscience and of standards of justifiable earnings. The variety of ways in which secretaries are treated is extraordinary.
We should listen to the secretaries themselves. The secretaries are properly represented and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has heard their representations. The House and the Government would be well advised to take account of two suggestions by the secretaries. We should make proper provision for secretaries' pensions. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment which makes such provision.
Whether or not that amendment is carried, at least the Fees Office should be required to make deductions from Members' secretarial allowances for payment into a nominated private pension fund. At present that is not possible. The result is that many secretaries, simply because of lack of providence, have inadequate pension arrangements. A few years ago, before payments were made through the


Fees Office, many secretaries got into extreme PAYE difficulties. They ran up large debts with the Inland Revenue, and they have only gradually been able to unwind themselves from those financial difficulties.
There is another provision to which I hope the Leader of the House will give sympathetic consideration. It is especially important at the time of an election when perhaps 50 or more Members from one party lose their seats. Secretaries understandably have loyalty to their Members of Parliament and to the parties that those Members represent. They do not readily change from Members on one side of the House to Members on the other side. The secretaries are entitled to claim for pay both during election time when the Member loses his seat and in the event of the death of a Member.
The provisions for severance pay are totally inadequate. For example, when a Member dies a secretary can claim £500 for completion of the Member's work. However, that sum has to be claimed from the estate of the Member and the estate has to claim that sum from the Fees Office. That is a needless and roundabout manner in which to claim the money due. It should be claimed direct from the Fees Office.
I hope that the Leader of the House, when he replies will be sympathetic towards the points that I have raised.

Mr. Bruce George: The sum total of the institutional tinkering that has taken place in Parliament over the past century has amounted to very little. I am pleased that we have seen the creation of Select Committees. However, unless they are properly staffed and Members are given adequate support, it will be yet another blind alley of reform.
If I were to ask myself what would be the single most important change that would allow Members to perform their limited functions more effectively, I would say that it would be to give them the proper staff support that they need. At a time of cost-cutting it would be ludicrous to argue that we could go a long way along the road of the American staffing example, and it angers me to hear

the arguments of those who say that we should go to the American excess. Evita, in the musical of that name, said:
All I want is a whole lot of excess".
The fact that we do not wish to go that far does not mean that we cannot somehow bridge the gap between our ludicrous staff support and the excess staff support enjoyed by American Congressmen.
The House of Commons is still the House of Commons of the nineteenth century, when amateur gentlemen came in and thought that they had the intellect to cope with the problems of the day in a proper manner. There are those of us, perhaps lacking the scintillating intellect of others, who wish to do an honest, professional and competent job, not of usurping the responsibility of the Executive but of being able to shine a light on the decisions of the Government, to control the Executive and to serve our constituents. We cannot do that. I regret to say that the document before us does not bring about any qualitative change in the way in which the House will operate.
It is not asking for the moon to say "Let me have the tools to do the job and sufficient staff support to allow me to perform my duties to the best of my ability and to the satisfaction of my constituents." Parliament must reform its staff support at three separate levels. The first level is obviously that of support in our offices. We can buy whatever £4,700 or so will secure. That, regrettably, will get only someone who is dedicated and who is prepared to work for a pittance. By contrast, members of the American House of Representatives are authorised to spend £120,000 a year on staff support in addition to their large salaries. They can employ up to 18 people. In many cases, Senators can employ up to 50 people.
Let us compare Britain not with America but with the Bundestag. Even here the British Member of Parliament is totally outclassed when it comes to staff support. In addition to the £36,000 a year salary of the Bundestag deputy, one-third of which is untaxed, he has an allowance of more than £13,000 for staff. That puts him well in front of us. Little wonder is it that many Members of Parliament have jumped at the opportunity of securing the services


of unpaid American assistants. If properly used. I believe that those people can do a great job. It is far from being the ideal, but when one has little research assistance, and when someone comes along with enthusiasm and a different perspective of the problems, it goes a long way towards enhancing the way in which we operate.
I have today returned from the republic of Korea. Although it is striving to liberalise, the National Assembly in Korea is not one of those legislatures which instantly comes to mind when one thinks of trail-blazing, democratic Parliaments. Yet it is better staffed than we are. Its deputies have more personal staff and it has more library staff, the same number of researchers in the library and a budget that puts the House of Commons Library to shame. If Korea can do it, why cannot we provide ourselves with proper research support?
Therefore, we must improve our staffing. Why should not we have someone who can operate in the constituencies, such as a secretary or a researcher-cum-assistant? A sum of £1,250 a year will not buy a major portion of the Brookings Institute or the Rand Corporation's research expertise. Can one advertise in the House Magazine "Wanted, one researcher prepared to work 40 hours a week for £1,250"? I do not think that many people would take up such an offer. We must improve our personal staff support.
Obviously we must improve staff support in the Library. The report makes the understatement of the year when it says:
The Library's capacity to analyse problems in depth for individual MPs is however necessarily limited.
There are 20 researchers in the Library, the same number as in Korea. The figures have gone up. In 1960 there were two officers, two statisticians and a couple of secretaries. The research division now consists of 36 members, only 20 of whom are research specialists. They are dedicated and hard-working. But hon. Members should compare our 20 with Australia's 30, Canada's 45, West Germany's 71 and more than 500 in the United States Congress. If one takes the figure for research specialists per 100 Members in this Parliament and those in Canada, West Germany, Australia and the United

States, one finds that the respective figures are 3·1, 12·2, 13·1, 16 and 94. We are simply not in the same league. Therefore, the Library must be improved.
How can we do our job on Select Committees if the staff are generally part-time? For example, on the Defence Select Committee there are three part-time advisers. They are dedicated, experienced people, but they are not full-time. In addition, we have general staff support. When that is set against the weight, experience, duplicity, secrecy and machinations of the bureaucracy, it will be seen that it is an extremely unequal task.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairmen discussed that matter yesterday and came to the conclusion that the next stage should be to make representations to the House of Commons Commission about full-time paid researchers. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find a movement towards satisfying the real need which he so clearly describes.

Mr. George: I am delighted with that news. There are those Members of Parliament who may not want an improved Library. I know of some members of Select Committees who do not even want the advice that we receive at the present time. That is fine. Let them get on with the job in the way in which they want to, but do not let them thwart those of us who want to do a different kind of job.
I think that we can sell this to the public. We can tell the public that we shall become more efficient and that we can provide a better service. We invent honorary titles for ourselves—the hon. and gallant, the hon. and learned, and so on. I have been a Member for six years. and I think that the title of "Hon. and superfluous" could be added to the list. I am speaking for myself, but perhaps for other Members, too. We perform our role as Members of Parliament in the same way as those music hall artists of the past performed. They had, say, 15 pliable rods with plates on top, and they managed, by shaking the rods, to keep the plates on the rods. They were lucky.
I my case, and I suspect in many other cases also, all the plates crashed to the floor.
I do not think that the Boyle report takes us anyway nearer to providing the proper support and allowing us to do our proper job. We are not here to govern, but even within our limited competence we can do an infinitely better job than we have been allowed to do in the past. When I first became a Member I assumed that I would be joining a group of people who would be straining at the leash vis-a-vis the Executive to improve and increase the power of the legislature. How stupid and naive can one be? I have found that there is far more of a minority who think as I do, but we are outnumbered.
Let us take a small step forward, and let us fight to ensure that in the not-too-distant future we have a Library which is fit for a legislature such as ours, that there will be proper support in Select Committees, and that we shall be able to perform our duties in our constituencies with the support that we should have and which one day we may have.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With the permission of the House, I rise to speak again to answer some of the important points that have been raised in this interesting and valuable debate. I have listened to virtually every word of it over the last five hours, and the subject has been discussed fully. Every hon. Member who wanted to speak has been able to do so.
I stress that the ultimate decision on these matters rests with the House of Commons. This is a situation where the Government proposes and the House disposes. If the various amendments are passed, the Government will have to think again and come back to the House with proposals that take into account its wishes. However, I do not think that Members would expect every amendment to be accepted. They are amendments that contain principles and aspirations, and Members would not expect them to be followed in any detail.
Although there have been points of disagreement during the debate, there has also been a wide measure of agreement. For example, over the question of employment by the House of Members secretaries there has been a consensus that the variety of arrangements are such

that it would be inappropriate for such a condition to be imposed.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) said that I had received a delegation from the Secretaries Council. We had a full and interesting discussion. One of the points that emerged from that meeting was that the Secretaries Council was not pressing for employment simply by the House. It was its wish and the wish of the majority of its members that secretaries should continue to be employed by individual hon. Members. It raised the important question of the payment of secretaries who work on after an hon. Member's death. Owing to the present arrangements, that money is apparently paid to the estate. Secretaries can suffer severely in that regard. As we all know, it takes a considerable time for probate to be granted. I shall consider that further to ascertain whether better arrangements may be made so that payment may be hastened.

Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he cannot necessarily respond to all the arrangements. Can he at least say that he will authorise the Fees Office to deduct pension contributions and pay them direct to a private pension fund of a secretary?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall have to consult the Fees Office. I cannot commit it to doing that. I shall ask it whether that would be feasible. It my have objections, but I shall raise the matter at the hon. Gentleman's request.
I say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has temporarily vanished but who has been in the Chamber throughout the day and is probably in need of refreshment, that things have improved. I am not saying that the situation is perfect, but things have improved and they are getting better.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was a little pessimistic about the future, about the importance of the report and about the further steps that we are able to take. The report is another step forward and the Government will base their proposals upon it. The hon. Gentleman quoted Korea and the apparently paradisiacal situation in that legislature. I do not know enough about Korea to be able to have a detailed discussion with the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted that he managed to get there, anyhow. South


Korea has one of the highest growth rates in the world. When we make comparisons with other countries—for example, with the United States and its resources, or with West Germany—we must remember that they are doing much better economically than is the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rooker: Which came first?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Many of the features that we want for an improved legislature will have to await an improved economic situation. I am most anxious—no one is more anxious than I—to have a new building and better accommodation. I hope that we shall be able to make progress in that direction, but it is not possible at this juncture of our economic fortunes to provide that new building, which really is the only long-term solution to the problem of Members' accommodation.
It is possible to exaggerate. It is thought by some that it is necessary to have a skyscraper to construct a formula. That is not so. A formula may be constructed in humble circumstances at a desk which is as valid as that which is constructed in more impressive surroundings. The point can be reached when there is too much back-up. We can be smothered by back-up. We can collapse under its weight. That is not my problem in my rather modest Department, the Privy Council, where there is a very small staff. However, some of the great Departments of State find that the huge amount of advice that is available is a hindrance rather than a help. We must strike a balance. That means striking a balance between our means and our needs.
I thank the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, (Mr. Cunningham) for his remarks. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be in an agreeable mood and I am grateful for his constructive and helpful remarks.
With regard to the Boyle recommendation about the upgrading of the salaries of hon. Members, which, as I have made clear, has been accepted by the Government, the procedure will be that shortly after we receive the recommendation a resolution will come before the House. I hope that it will not be necessary to have a lengthy debate on it. but the is difficult to be precise. [HON. MEMBERS:

House must vote on all matters concerning the salaries of hon. Members.
As for Ministers and other office holders in the House of Lords, the recommendation for the modest allowance made in the Boyle report will be implemented; the Government accept that. It will be implemented by resolution in the other place.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am speaking without having done any research, but this is possibly the first time that the House of Lords, by way of resolution, has made arangements specially for Ministers in the House of Lords. That is a precedent. I repeat what I said earlier. This House has an interest in the treatment that is accorded to Ministers in the House of Lords. The salary of Ministers in the House of Lords is provided by the Act and not by resolution of the House of Lords.
I ask the Leader of the House to look at this again to see whether it is appropriate for an allowance specially for Ministers of the House of Lords—not by reason of their activities as Members of the House of Lords but by reason of their activities within the Government—to be provided by a resolution of the House of Lords. This allowance relates to the expenses of Ministers who are Members of the House of Lords in respect of non-departmental functions, but functions as Ministers. The more I go on about it, the more I convince myself that there is something here that needs further consideration.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that that is often the case with hon. Members; we convince ourselves, if nobody else. This, of course, is not a salary; it is an allowance. All that I can say is that the best advice available to me from my modest but high-powered staff is that this is an appropriate matter for the other priate moment we can bring it before the at it again and, if necessary, at an appropriate moment we can bring it before the House.
At present, the travel costs of hon. Members amount to about £2 million. That is the figure that I have available. The amount that would be involved if those costs were extended to enable hon. Members to travel to all parts of the United Kingdom would probably be in the region of a further £2 million, though it


"Oh, no."] All that I can say is that that is the figure that has been given to me. It is a guesstimate. I put it no higher than that. I do not claim that it is an accurate figure. It cannot be.

Mr. Cunningham: Is that per year?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, £2 million per year.

Mr. Cunningham: A figure of £2 million per year means about £3,000 per Member. That seems to be an incredibly high figure.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I say, I put that forward as a guesstimate. A considerable increase in expense would be involved here, and it is not something that I can recommend to the House at present, though I have been careful not to rule it out in principle. I indicated that it was a good idea in principle but that it was a matter of timing its implementation. We shall certainly look into the issue of railway season tickets.
I am also concerned about the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) about visiting prisons. I certainly think that that is a valid point and I shall draw it to the attention of the appropriate House authorities to see whether we can get a change in the practice to enable visits associated with legitimate parliamentary business to be paid for.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned the question of linkage and drew a distinction between linkage and indexation. That is a theoretical distinction which can be made, but in practice it is a distinction without, as far as popular perception is concerned, very much of a difference. In this House we must direct our actions not only by logical construction but by how those actions are perceived outside. The recommendations of the Boyle committee, half-hearted though they were, were for a link with the new earnings survey, and it is difficult to distinguish that from some form of indexation. There is a political difficulty associated with implementing this recommendation at present. Therefore, what I have suggested is an annual review which I believe, particularly with the pledge that I have given on behalf of the Government, will have many of the advantages of indexation without the undoubted disadvantages.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for his generous tribute to me. I give him a tu quoque reply. He has probably done more than anyone in this House to ensure that consultations have been carried out, not only on behalf of the Conservative Party but other parties in the House as well.
One reason why this has been a relatively peaceful debate is that everyone has felt that he has had the opportunity to put his point of view, even if we have not found it possible to accede in every respect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton suggested that we should not continue to use the Boyle Committee. He thought that we should look to some other means—a better and more suitable machinery—for resolving these matters. I shall look at that point. It has been suggested that a Select Committee might be appropriate. However, a Select Committee has a distinct disadvantage because it is an intrinsic part of the House and one of the benefits of the Boyle committtee is that it is independent, and is seen to be independent, of this House. However, I shall look at this matter again.
I agree that it is ridiculous that a committee of the stature of Boyle should have to consider such minutiae as whether one should have a typewriter and, if so, whether it should be an early Corona or a new electric model.
My right hon. Friend raised the important point about the use of the Members' fund. He disapproves of what the Government propose—although there are no resolutions before the House tonight—in respect of Members who retired before the pension scheme came into operation in 1964. I must point out that what the Government propose, on the recommendation of the committee, is that there should be resort to the fund as of right. Therefore, although we shall resort to a benevolent fund, something quite different is being proposed. We do not propose a discretionary or means-tested benefit. We intend in due course to bring forward proposals in a Bill that will give new rights to hon. Members. That makes a big difference.
It would be quite contrary to normal pensions practice if a scheme were made operable for those who had retired before


it came into operation. It is to respect that theoretical principle and at the same time to give practical help that the Government's proposals will, in due course, be placed before the House.

Mr. English: We all know about the Superannuation Act 1972. Was not that Act retrospective? Did it not apply to civil servants who had already retired?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot remember. However, I shall consult my high-powered but modest staff on that point. I shall communicate their conclusions to the hon. Gentleman.
I do not say that there will never be a time when linkage will be possible. I do not rule that out for ever. It is an elementary principle of political prudence never to say "Never" from the Dispatch Box. However, at some time in the future we may be able to review the situation.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have discussed the questions relating to the Civil Service analogue for secretaries both in private and in public. I have great sympathy with his point about pensions. If the House clearly expresses its will on this issue, I shall certainly not be backward—

Mr. Rooker: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am a servant of the House. I must see what the House wishes to do. That is the role of the Leader of the House. My role does not involve imposing my wishes. The hon. Gentleman may find that an unusual approach. However, it is my approach and it is sincerely meant.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall not give way. Everyone has had his say. I am trying not to initiate new debates but to answer points that have already been raised.
I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that there is a strong case for giving earlier pensions to hon. Members. People wait around the House, although they wish to retire, to accrue pension rights. This is a wasteful use of resources. It prevents others from entering the House who might be able to

give a different type of service. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). We cannot make such progress now. However, that is one of the things that could be referred to the Boyle committee at a later stage.
I fully sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) about office equipment. In that respect I believe that the Boyle recommendations are probably less than satisfactory, and there appears to have been a change of ground. At one point there was an office allowance. It has now gone. It is absolutely true that the expense of office equipment, typewriters and so on has increased heavily. That is a point that I propose to refer again to the Boyle committee at an appropriate moment.
With regard to secretaries and their payment for the period after Dissolution, logically there is no case for paying them, but there is no logical case for paying hon. Members. Hon. Members are paid and secretaries are not. An anomalous situation exists that needs further investigation. Here again, that is a matter that Boyle or some other committee might be asked to go into at a later stage.

Mr. Garel-Jones: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his sympathy for the amendment calling for an allowance to enable hon. Members to contribute to a supplementary pension for their secretaries? Perhaps it is an innocent question from a new hon. Member, but does that sympathy indicate that the Government will not be using the Whip against the amendment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No Whip has been imposed by the Government tonight.
I turn to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) regarding redundancy payments for Members of Parliament who lose their seats. The point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster. It is true that in this House we have a high degree of job insecurity. It is probably the highest in the country. We are almost in the situation that the only person who can be fired from a job is a Member of Parliament, at least without facing judicial and other consequences.
All I can say is that the present proposals of the Boyle committee embodied in the motion are an improvement. We cannot do everything at once. Again, this is a matter on which progress can be made at a later stage. We are making some progress now.
I say to Labour Members who have been pressing me hard on these measures—and I say this, I hope, in an irenic spirit—that very little was done by the previous Government in that respect. A turning point in the whole unfortunate saga was in 1975 when decisions were taken that I have had to get away from. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] I am grateful for that support. I am therefore catching up on years of neglect, and doing so as quickly as possible in the circumstances.
I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby—or West Derby in Liverpool or Liverpool in West Derby; it is becoming an almost metaphysical concept, like the Duchy of Lancaster—that I should like to join in his tribute to Mr. Wilkin and the staff of the Fees Office. There is no official of this House who is more devoted in his service to hon. Members or more understanding and helpful. I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute, prompted by the hon. Gentleman, to the work of the Fees Office.
I have answered as many of the points as I can from this Dispatch Box. I can give this further undertaking to the House. I shall go extremely carefully through all the suggestions made in the debate with a view to submitting them at some stage to the appropriate committee for further review.
I should also like to say this. I shall not put the point in the astringent way in which my hon. Friend

the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) put it—that no one asked us to be here—thus drawing upon himself the wrath of his hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). I offer this as a point lot reflection. We face many problems in the House. It is right that we should seek to solve them. It is right that Members of Parliament should be paid adequately and that we should have the means to do the job we have been sent here to do. It is right that those whore we employ should enjoy conditions that are comparable with those enjoyed by people doing similar work elsewhere.

In conculsion, may I say this as a reflection for tonight: the problems of not being in the House are much greater than the problems of being in it.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Question on the first motion. Does the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) wish to move the first amendment?

Mr. George Cunningham: No, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the second amendment. Does the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) wish to move it?

Mr. Dubs: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment proposed, at end of motion add
'and is of the opinion that the cost of all travel within the United Kingdom on Parliamentary business should be reimbursed or qualify for payment of the car mileage allowance'.—[Mr. Dubs.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 129.

Division No. 211]
AYES
[9.36 pm


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dixon, Donald


Ancram, Michael
Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Canavan, Dennis
Dorrell, Stephen


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dubs, Alfred


Beith, A. J.
Cartwright, John
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Best, Keith
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin F.
English, Michael


Blackburn, John
Cryer, Bob
Ewing, Harry


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael




Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheerman, Barry


Forrester, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Freud, Clement
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Soley, Clive


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNally, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon David


George, Bruce
Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Golding, John
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Gorst, John
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)
Stoddart, David


Gourlay, Harry
Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maynard, Miss Joan
Straw, Jack


Greenway, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morton, George
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Donald


Hannam, John
Ogden, Eric
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Neill, Martin
Tilley, John


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tinn, James


Home Robertson, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur
Trippier, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parry, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Howells, Geraint
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prescott, John
Ward, John


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Kerr, Russell
Rhodes James, Robert
Wickenden, Keith


Kilfedder, James A.
Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Lamond, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)



Lee, John
Robertson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead and


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Reg Race.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sever, John





NOES


Arnold, Tom
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hayhoe, Barney
Parris, Matthew


Berry, Hon Anthony
Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Barry
Percival, Sir Ian


Bradford, Rev. R.
Hooson, Tom
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brotherton, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Butcher, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Channon, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Churchill, W. S.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Cockeram, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas
Spence, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Cormack, Patrick
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sproat, Iain




Stainton, Keith


Corrie, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Stanley, John


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stevens, Martin


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, David


Field, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wakeham, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Molyneaux, James
Warren, Kenneth


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moore, John
Watson, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Wheeler, John


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mudd, David
Whitney, Raymond


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Myles, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Needham, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Goodhart, Philip
Nelson, Anthony



Goodhew, Victor
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian
Newton, Tony



Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Osborn, John
Mr. John MacGregor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Thirteenth

Report of the Review body on Top Salaries [Cmnd. 7825], and is of the opinion that the cost of all travel within the United Kingdom on Parliamentary business should be reimbursed or qualify for payment of the car mileage allowance.

MEMBERS OFFICE, SECRETARIAL AND RESEARCH ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the opinion of the House, the limit on the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his parliamentary duties as general office expenses, on secretarial assistance and on research assistance should be £4,800 for the year ending 31st March 1980 and £6,750 for any subsequent year.—[Mr. St. John-Ste vas.]

Amendment (b) proposed,
to leave out from second 'and' to end and insert '£10,000 for any subsequent year, of which £4,000 shall be spent on research work, described to, and approved by, the Fees Office'.—[Mr. Whitehead.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 147.

Division No. 212]
AYES
[9.48 pm


Alexander, Richard
Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Alton, David
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ancram, Michael
Freud, Clement
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parry, Robert


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
George, Bruce
Penhallgon, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Beith, A. J.
Gorst, John
Prescott, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Richardson, Jo


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, John
Hannam, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Robertson, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hooley, Frank
Sever, John


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Soley, Clive


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint
Spriggs, Leslie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cartwright, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Stevens, Martin


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David
Stott, Roger


Cook, Robin F.
Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Crowther, J. S.
Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tilley, John


Dewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Dixon, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Trippier, David


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dykes, Hugh
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McNally, Thomas
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


English, Michael
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)
Winnick, David


Ewing, Harry
Maxton, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Field, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian



Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Neale, Gerrard
Mr. Alfred Dubs and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Reg Race.




NOES


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Eyre, Reginald


Aspinwall, Jack
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Paul
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bradford, Rev. R.
Cockeram, Eric
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bright, Graham
Cope, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brittan, Leon
Corrie, John
Goodhart, Philip


Brooke, Hon Peter
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Brotherton, Michael
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Gow, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg a Sc'thorpe)
Dorrell, Stephen
Gower, Sir Raymond


Butcher, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Gray, Hamish


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Durant, Tony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)




Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Scott, Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Hawksley, Warren
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sims, Roger


Hayhoe, Barney
Molyneaux, James
Spearing, Nigel


Heddle, John
Moore, John
Speller, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Spence, John


Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mudd, David
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Myles, David
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard
Stanley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nelson, Anthony
Stoddart, David


Kilfedder, James A.
Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Newton, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Knight, Mrs Jill
Nott, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Donald


Lawrence, Ivan
Osborn, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lawson, Nigel
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Waddington, David


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wakeham, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Parkinson, Cecil
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Ward, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Percival, Sir Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Lyell, Nicholas
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Watson, John


McCrindle, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wheeler, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Renton, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Mather, Carol
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Rost, Peter
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Mawby, Ray
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. John McGregor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) wish to move amendments (c) and (d)?

Mr. Dubs: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wish to move amendment (i)?

Mr. Beith: Yes, Sir.

Amendment (i) proposed,
At end of motion add 'and that a further sum not exceeding £675 per annum shall be available in respect of each Member solely for the purpose of payments into an approved scheme to provide pensions for a person or persons paid by him out of the allowances referred to above.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 115.

Division No. 213]
AYES
[10.00 pm


Alexander, Richard
Crowther, J. S.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Alton, David
Cryer, Bob
George, Bruce


Ancram, Michael
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Gorst, John


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam
Greenway, Harry


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bendall, Vivian
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dixon, Donald
Hannam, John


Best, Keith
Dobson, Frank
Heddle, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Blackburn, John
Dorrell, Stephen
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dubs, Alfred
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Home Robertson, John


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Durant, Tony
Hooley, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dykes, Hugh
Horam, John


Bright, Graham
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eggar, Timothy
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bulmer, Esmond
English, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Flannery, Martin
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamond, James


Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lang, Ian


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Forrester, John
Lee, John


Cohen, Stanley
Foulkes, George
Leighton, Ronald


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
Freud, Clement
Lofthouse, Geoffrey




Lyell, Nicholas
Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Race, Reg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


McElhone, Frank
Rhodes James, Robert
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Donald


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Richardson, Jo
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tilley, John


McNally, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Trippier, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Robertson, George
Trotter, Neville


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)
Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maxton, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Scott, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mikardo, Ian
Sever, John
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Ward, John


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Sheerman, Barry
Watson, John


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Morton, George
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Myles, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Neale, Gerrard
Soley, Clive
Wickenden, Keith


Needham, Richard
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stevens, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)



Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Parry, Robert
Stoddart, David
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Penhaligon, David
Stott, Roger
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)






NOES


Arnold, Tom
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Osborn, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Sir Ian


Bradford, Rev. R.
Hooson, Tom
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brittan, Leon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brotherton, Michael
Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Kilfedder, James A.
Renton, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Channon, Paul
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Chapman, Sydney
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rossi, Hugh


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Silvester, Fred


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Cockeram, Eric
McCrindle, Robert
Speller, Tony


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Nell
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Cormack, Patrick
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Corrie, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stanley, John


Costain, A. P.
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marlow, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Wakeham, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Waller, Gary


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moate, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Molyneaux, James
Whitney, Raymond


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moore, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)



Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. David Waddington and


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the limit on the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his parliamentary duties

as general office expenses, on secretarial assistance and on research assistance should be £4,800 for the year ending 31st March 1980 and £6,750 for any subsequent year, and that a further sum not exceeding £675 per annum shall be available in respect of each Member solely for the purpose of payments into an approved scheme to provide pensions for a person or persons paid by him out of the allowances referred to above.

CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS' SPOUSES

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House—
(a) provision should be made for the payment of a car mileage allowance in respect of any journey by a spouse of a Member of this House begun after the date of this Resolution for which, under the Resolutions of this House of 7 April 1971 and 22 July 1975, facilities for free travel would be available to him or her if the journey were made by rail, sea or air.;

5
 That, in the opinion of this House, the grant payable to persons who, on a dissolution, cease to be Members of this House in the circumstances specified in paragraph (9) of the second Resolution of this House of 20th December 1971 should be related, in the manner shown by the Table below, to age and length of service as a Member of this House at the time of the dissolution, the percentages shown being percentages of the yearly salary at the highest rate payable to Members immediately before the dissolution.

TABLE


PERCENTAGES OF YEARLY SALARY






Length of service (completed years)




10
Age
under
10
11
12
13
14
15 or over




10









under 50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25



50
25
25
26
27
28
29
30



51
25
26
27½
29
31
32½
34


15
52
25
27
29
31½
33½
36
38



53
25
28
31
33½
36½
39
42



54
25
29
32½
36
39
42½
46



55–64
25
30
34
38
42
46
50



65
25
25
28
31
34
37
40


20
66
25
25
27
29
31
33
35



or over

—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Amendment proposed, leave out lines 7 to 21 and insert—

'TABLE


PERCENTAGES OF YEARLY SALARY





Length of service (completed years)




Age
under
10
11
12
13
14
15 or over



10








under 50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50


50
50
50
52
54
56
58
60


51
50
52
55
58
62
65
68


52
50
54
58
63
67
72
76


53
50
56
62
67
73
78
84


54
50
58
65
72
78
85
92


55 to 64
50
60
68
76
84
92
100


65
50
50
56
62
68
74
80


66
50
50
54
58
62
66
70


and over'

—[Mr. Ashton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

(b) any journey in respect of which the allowance is paid should count against the number of journeys for which facilities for free travel may be provided; and

(c) the rate of the allowance should be that for the time being applicable to Members travelling on parliamentary duties.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas]

GRANTS FOR FORMER MEMBERS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 131.

Division No. 214]
AYES
[10.12 pm


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Bright, Graham


Alton, David
Best, Keith
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)


Ashton, Joe
Blackburn, John
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, Norman (H'goy, Tott'ham)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Beith. A. J.
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carter-Jones, Lewis




Cartwright, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Richardson, Jo


Cohen, Stanley
Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cook, Robin F.
Horam, John
Robertson, George


Crowther, J. S.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rooker, J. W.


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Scott, Nicholas


Dalyell, Tam
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sever, John


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheerman, Barry


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dewar, Donald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dixon, Donald
Lambie, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lee, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Durant, Tony
Leighton, Ronald
Stevens, Martin


Dykes, Hugh
Litherland, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Eadie, Alex
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Eastham, Ken
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stoddart, David


Eggar, Timothy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McElhone, Frank
Straw, Jack


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


English, Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Ewing, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Field, Frank
McNally, Thomas
Thompson, Donald


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Tilley, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)
Tinn, James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxton, John
Trippier, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Foulkes, George
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Watson, John


Freud, Clement
Morton, George
Wheeler, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Myles, David
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


George, Bruce
Neale, Gerrard
Whitehead, Phillip


Glyn, Dr Alan
Needham, Richard
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Gorst, John
Ogden, Eric
Winnick, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
O'Neill, Martin
Woolmer, Kenneth


Greenway, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannam,John
Penhallgon, David
Mr. Reg Race and


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogim[...]'e)
Mr. Alfred Dubs.


Heddle, John
Prescott, John





NOES


Ancram, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bendall, Vivian
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacGregor, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bradford, Rev. R.
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Brotherton, Michael
Gow, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Moate, Roger


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Molyneaux, James


Butcher, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moore, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon John


Churchill, W. S.
Hooson, Tom
Osborn, John


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Cockeram, Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Parkinson, Cecil


Cope, John
Kilfedder, James A.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Cormack, Patrick
King, Rt Hon Tom
Percival, Sir Ian


Corrie, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dorrell, Stephen
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rathbone, Tim







Renton, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stanley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman
Whitney, Raymond


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Wickenden, Keith


Rossi, Hugh
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Trotter, Neville



Silvester, Fred
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, John
Mr. David Waddington and


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, the grant payable to persons who, on a dissolution, cease to be Members of this House in the circumstances specified in paragraph (9) of the second Resolution of this House of 20th December 1971 should be related, in the manner shown by the Table below, to age and length of service as a Member of this House at the time of the dissolution, the percentages shown being percentages of the yearly salary at the highest rate payable to Members immediately before the dissolution.

'TABLE


PERCENTAGES OF YEARLY SALARY





Length of service (completed years)




Age
under
10
11
12
13
14
15 or over



10








under 50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50


50
50
50
52
54
56
58
60


51
50
52
55
58
62
65
68


52
50
54
58
63
67
72
76


53
50
56
62
67
73
78
84


54
50
58
65
72
78
85
92


55 to 64
50
60
68
76
84
92
100


65
50
50
56
62
68
74
80


66
50
50
54
58
62
66
70


and over'

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there is no money resolution on the Order Paper, would it be in order to ask the Leader of the House to make a statement as to the Government's intentions?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It would be perfectly in order to ask for a statement of the Government's intentions. The Government, as I made clear, accept the will

of the House. How this should be put into practice is a matter for discussion.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIR SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland).

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Under the terms of the business motion to which the House has agreed, further proceedings on the Bill stand postponed.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIR SERVICES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for assistance by way of grants or loans in connection with air services serving the Highlands and Islands, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred by him in consequence of any provision of the said Act.
And that it is expedient to authorise any payment into the Consolidated Fund under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Mr. George Robertson: It is necessary for me to speak on the money resolution because, as a result of the terms of that resolution, new clause 1, in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, has been ruled out of order.
The money resolution lays down that assistance under the Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Bill will be by way of grants or loans; whereas new clause 1 was designed specifically to cover the existing situation that prevailed in the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, in which provision was included for the acquiring of shares or stocks in a company if assistance was to be given to an airline in that way.
Obviously there is a variety of ways in which assistance can be given to Highlands and Islands air services. It was the feeling of the House in 1975, when the Scottish Development Agency Act went through, that provision should be made for the acquisition of loans and stock. It is significant to note that no move was made by the then Opposition to vote against any of the provisions of the Bill as it stood at that stage. Therefore, section 21(3) of the Act provides that assistance should be given based on the acquisition of loan stock or shares. There seems to be no reason why this part of the pre-existing statute should have been missed out, other than a doctrinaire fascination of the Government, hostile and opposed as they are to any form of intervention.
This would be of only academic interest to the House if it were not for the fact that the majority of the assistance

that we are discussing and the majority of money that we are voting under the money resolution was to go to one company—Loganair Ltd. That company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which, in its turn, is part of the partnership that makes up the National and Commercial Banking Group.
One of the fundamental principles in banking is that when one makes a loan one makes sure that one takes full security for it. The move by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in 1975, when he moved clause 21(3) of the Scottish Development Agency Bill, was to make sure that whatever public assets were to be disbursed to the airlines affected by the measure, the public interest in these loans or grants was to be secured by means of equity shareholding. That was followed by the tradition established by the Industry Act 1972 which introduced for the first time the idea that public equity could be taken in return for loans. I remind the House that that Industry Act was a Conservative Government measure and a creature-child of the U-turn of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
Had the money resolution been framed in a more flexible and reasonable manner it would have been possible for new clause 1 to be in order and for the preexisting flexibility that existed in the Scottish Development Agency Act in this regard to have remained within the Bill and given the Government a slightly more flexible way in which to deal with the question of subsidies to Highlands and Islands airways.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I, too, regret the fact that the money resolution has been confined in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has mentioned. In 1965, in the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act, the then Government omitted to take comparable powers for the Highlands and Islands Development Board to enable that board to invest in industry for the benefit of the Highlands and Islands by means of taking equity shareholdings. Subsequently it proved necessary to move an amendment to the parent Act by way of a Private Member's Bill, which I promoted in 1968.
That was a necessary amendment, which had not been foreseen by the Government of the day. The issue had not directly arisen. By analogy, the Government would have been wise to recognise that although the powers that existed under the original Act had not been used during the past five years it might prove helpful to have them in future. Circumstances may change.
The situation in respect of carriers in the Highlands has changed since the Bill was originally promoted. The role of Air Ecosse has extended. That may prove to be a future candidate for financial assistance under the terms of this Bill. I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. For totally doctrinaire reasons, the Government have deprived themselves of a means of offering assistance to air carriers in the Highlands. Such means may prove necessary in future.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has raised this subject under the Money Resolution. Clause 4 deals with that specific issue. It might have been more appropriate to raise the subject in a clause stand part debate. However, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, although this provision was included in the Scottish Development Agency Bill it has never been used. There it has had no effect on existing policy.
There is a more important reason why that power is inappropriate. The Bill would provide aid to specific air services. It would not provide assistance to companies, as such. If the Secretary of State were to take equity in a company it would give him power to influence a whole range of that company's policies and activities. He would be able to influence other services that might not be subject to any public subsidy. The only form of subsidy being provided is a form that will be limited to a particular service or services. That is as true of Logan-air as of any other company that receives such assistance. To take equity would seem to be a particularly inappropriate way of exercising responsibility.
The House will be aware that there is provision for loans or grants to be repaid under certain circumstances. The Government

may provide help by other means and ensure that the money is usefully spent. However, the form of equity suggested by the hon. Gentleman was not used by the previous Government, for the reasons that I have given. It is inappropriate to give help to the individual services of a company.

Question put and agreed to.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIR SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS PROVIDING AIR SERVICES SERVING THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, after 'maintaining,' insert 'reorganising.'
The purpose of this amendment is to add the word "reorganising" to clause 1. Existing legislation on this subject can be found in the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) [Lords] Act 1975. That Act simply designated the purposes for legislating about maintaining and improving air services that serve the Highlands and Islands. The Government have brought forward a measure to establish, maintain and improve air services for the Highlands and Islands.
My amendment would extend the Bill. It would give the Government the necessary powers to reorganise whatever air services might be available.
Air services in the Highlands and Islands, or, indeed, anywhere in the British Isles, are subject to regulation by the Government. The Government can use formal and informal methods to ensure that too many carriers do not fly on too many routes. It is therefore logical, when considering a new measure concerning air services for the Highlands and Islands, that as many powers as possible should be made available to the Government.
In the Industry Bill the Government were intent on removing the word "reorganisation" from the functions and powers of the Scottish Development


Agency, the National Enterprise Board and the Welsh Development Agency, on the ground that reorganisation did not accord with the scope of bodies supervised by this new free-market orientated Government.
This Bill is different, and we have some hope that the Government will accept the amendment. The principle behind the Bill, based as it is on public subsidies to private carriers, breaches the convention and ideology that is so often displayed on the Government Benches. The corollary of public subsidy to private enterprise must be that if the public good is to be advanced the power should exist to provide whatever the public service needs.
It is conceivable that the reorganisation of existing or potential carriers that will provide the services covered by the Bill will need to be rationalised. I accept that powers may already exist for the Government to achieve the necessary reorganisation. It may be possible under the Bill, and through the way in which grants or loans are disbursed, for the Government to influence the type of carrier, the service provided and the locations to which carriers fly.
The Bill leaves a great deal of discretion with the Secretary of State. At the same time, if the Bill is to be as comprehensive as the Government's amendments to the 1975 statute appear to indicate that they want, we should include as many powers as possible to establish rationalisation.
In speaking to the money resolution I said that the only beneficiary of the measure since 1975 was one airline—Loganair. That airline happens to be a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Commercial clearing banks are involved on repeated occasions in restructuring industries where their money is at stake. I do not believe that we are breaching any fundamental principle, whether Conservative or Labour, in establishing a power within statute that will stand for a long time and enable the Government to involve themselves in reorganising the services provided.
The Government have already created for themselves a new flexibility by including the word "establishing" in clause 1. It was not present previously. It is not a word that has been used since

1975. If we accept the principle that has motivated the Government in other aspects of the Bill, the Government have established that the purposes of the Bill should be extended. By including the word "reorganising" we are attempting to strengthen the powers that may not be necessary now but may be later, given the complexity and seriousness of the provision of an air service to a vast area like the Highlands and Islands. That is a pragmatic and practical solution, which the Government may yet need. I therefore commend the amendment.

Mr. J. Grimond: There does not seem to be much point in extending the purposes of the Bill if we do not also extend the money. There is so little money already that I hardly think that it would cover establishing, maintaining and improving air services.
The question of reorganisation allows me to make one point. Economy is of paramount importance to these services. As I said in a recent debate, there is a grave danger that air services will price themselves out of the market in the Islands of Scotland. Only expense account travellers and officials will be able to fly in them.
I appreciate that the Bill deals exclusively with services. It does not deal with the companies or airports. It is impossible to separate all the costs. Fuel and security costs are going up all the time. Even if the Government cannot undertake to reorganise the services, which I accept, if they are giving them money the Government might bring to bear the greatest pressure they can to ensure that fares are kept down. The smaller airlines certainly do that. Loganair and, to some extent, Air Ecosse are of great importance to my constituency and other parts of the Highlands and Islands. The travellers are, for the most part, people who cannot find the money for higher and higher fares. Anything that the Government can do to assist them to keep down the general expense of travelling would be most welcome in Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said about the desirability of the Government's using their influence upon the operating companies to improve


services—an influence that it is legitimate for them to use in cases where the Government are directly subsiding them. There are many other circumstances in which their influence would also be welcomed, for instance, in the holding down of air fares and in respect of the time-tabling of air services in the Highlands and Islands, which are frequently quite inconvenient and changed every six months, to the great inconvenience of travellers. Connecting times are unsuitable and forward travel is difficult to plan.
With the withdrawal of British Airways from a number of the Highlands and Islands air routes, this problem of co-ordination of timetabling is becoming ever more acute. As the British Airways timetables are not made public sufficiently in advance for some of the smaller airlines to adjust accordingly, it is almost beyond the capacity of the companies to resolve the problem without Government pressure being put on them to get together and work out a coherent network of schedules.
I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they recognise that there is a problem here which is exercising many travellers in the Highlands and Islands. The power recommended by my hon. Friend will go some way towards tackling or recognising this need.

10.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I do not necessarily disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that there may be circumstances in the future when some form of reorganisation of air services will be appropriate. The question really is whether the amendment is necessary to meet that requirement because under the Bill as it stands assistance can be given wherever assistance would be desirable for the purpose of maintaining or improving existing air services, and I do not find it possible to envisage circumstances in which reorganisation would be desirable where it was not either maintaining or improving the existing air services. Therefore, the existing wording of the Bill covers exactly the sort of eventuality to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have included the word "establishing" for the first time, but he

will appreciate that establishing a new air service, if this were thought to be appropriate, would not be covered by the words "maintaining or improving existing air services". Therefore it was necessary to put that additional word in, in case that circumstance should arise.
As for the points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Government of course recognise that the level of air fares is important to the viability of Island communities, and we have indicated that that is of considerable priority to the Government. It is for that reason that, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have, for example, given £1 million extra assistance to the Civil Aviation Authority to deal with the problem of excessive landing charges that might otherwise have been made at Highland airports. As a result of that extra contribution, any increase in air fares will be far less than would otherwise have proved to be necessary.

Mr. George Foulkes: It is not clear from the statement that was made by the Minister to the press exactly what effect the subsidy that he has agreed to with the Highlands and Islands airports will mean. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the percentage increase in landing charges will now be in the Highlands and Islands airports, so that we can see it in its full perspective?

Mr. Rifkind: What I was able to state was that an extra £1 million was being made available to the Civil Aviation Authority for the purpose of reducing the increases in landing charges which would otherwise be required at certain Highlands and Islands airports. I said at the time, and this remains the case, that the detailed way in which this money is to be used is a matter specifically for the Civil Aviation Authority. Naturally, in coming to a decision the Authority will consult the Scottish Office and other interested bodies, and we are expecting views to be forthcoming from the local authorities affected and other interested bodies on how these new resources could best be utilised.

Mr. Foulkes: I am not trying in any way to be critical of the Government, because I think the introduction of the £1 million subsidy was a welcome move, but I think that the hon. Gentleman should be able to tell us what the increases


are likely to be, anticipating what the Civil Aviation Authority might be able to do as a result of this extra subsidy. Obviously the increases will be less, but they are now something of the order of hundreds per cent., so that to be less will still mean hundreds per cent. increase. Assuming that the Civil Aviation Authority will make decisions roughly in line with what it was going to do previously, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the level of increase in landing charges might be now that the authority has the extra £1 million.

Mr. Rifkind: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the increases will be very much less than they would otherwise have been. I am sorry that I cannot assist him further. There is a whole series of possibilities, depending on the conclusions that the Civil Aviation Authority comes to. There is no statutory power other than that of the Civil Aviation Authority to determine appropriate landing charges. It cannot be directed by the Government, and although it will no doubt be taking into account the comments of interested bodies and, indeed, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond saying that the increases will be relatively modest compared with what they would otherwise have been. It is a matter over which the Scottish Office has no direct control.
The only other comment made was that by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who referred to the question of timetables. He will appreciate that that is essentially a matter for the airlines and he might like to make direct representations to them. It is clearly not a matter on which the Government could dictate or make changes, even if we were to agree with the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 15, after 'repayment', insert
'in whole or in part'.
The last part of subsection (2) is new language that has been imported into legislation since the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975. It reads:

and in the case of a grant, the terms and conditions may include provisions for repayment in specified circumstances.
The amendment provides that in addition to repayment partial repayment should be permitted.
On the surface that amendment may appear to be nitpicking in its effect, but that could hardly be further from the truth. The new phrase seems to have been constructed specifically to exclude the possibility of partial repayment.
The amendment also provides the Opposition with the opportunity to ask the Government in what sort of specified circumstances they would see the repayment of grant being considered. The House of Commons has churned out many statutes over the years in which is included provision for the repayment of grant, and the conditions for the repayment are usually specified clearly. Are we talking about circumstances in which profit is made on the services for which subsidies are provided and, if so, what criterion is to be used to measure the profits?
Is partial repayment of grant to be dependent on a judgment on the services provided which from time to time come in for criticism, as we have heard tonight from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)? Are these circumstances in which the Government would feel that, however small the amount of money, partial or full repayment would be considered? The Government must have in mind some circumstances, otherwise this new phrase would not have been included in subsection (2).
The amount of money that we are talking about for the coming year is £100,000. That is a tiny sum in comparison with the sort of expenditure that the House of Commons considers, but the sums that we are talking about are of enormous significance to the people in the areas affected by the Bill.

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly not intended that clause 1 should exclude the possibility of repayment in whole or in part. I am advised that it is implicit in the existing wording that that would be possible. I have no objection to making it more explicit. The words suggested in the amendment would not change the


purpose of the provision and, in so far as they would make clearer the scope of possibilities available to the Secretary of State, I am happy to recommend to the Committee that the amendment be accepted.
As to the circumstances in which the provision might be used, it is a matter at the discretion of the Secretary of State, dependent on the circumstances existing at the time.
In general terms, where it was thought likely that a recipient of public funds, as a result of the extra capital available, would be able to make a substantial return on his capital over a period of time, it would be right to make some provision for the return, either in whole or in part, of the public assistance received by him. In most cases that will not apply, but we accept that the possibility might arise where it would apply. In those circumstances it would be sensible to ensure that where public funds had led to substantial extra profitability for the recipient, who was able to make a return on his capital largely or solely as a result of the assistance that had been given, some provision of the kind proposed would be appropriate. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State would be inclined to use his power under the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Robertson: I shall not detain the House for too long. It would be wrong not to make some remarks on clause stand part. Clause 1 makes up a substantial part of this short measure. I would be the last to pretend that the attendance in the House at this late hour has much to do with the Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Bill. At the same time, a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side have an interest in this subject. Since much has been made of transportation in the Highlands and Islands in recent weeks, some comments should be made on the clause.
The question that has to be answered, even if the answer is self-evident, is why the Bill is necessary and why a Conservative Government should continue to promote a measure conceived by the Labour Government in 1975. The answer is simple. If Highland communities are to

remain alive and to thrive, public support and subsidy from the rest of the United Kingdom is necessary. The grant for basic air services to remote parts of the Highlands will be maintained only by the public subsidies that are derided and criticised by the Treasury Bench in other areas of the economy.
Before the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), when he looked at the Bill, said "Not much of a free market here". That was a perceptive remark. If my right hon. Friend were more aware of the local circumstances that prevail in Scotland, he might be even more astounded to know that only 10 days ago the Minister himself—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—featured on the front page of The Scotsman, in the company of a variety of councillors, Labour, Conservative and Independent, all with gleaming smiles and cheering the announcement by this Government, implacably opposed to public subsidies of all sorts and the propping-up of lame ducks, of a new subsidy for the airfields of the Highlands and Islands. That subsidy was not the £100,000 with which this Bill is concerned but an extra £1 million that was to be disbursed to keep down the scale of landing charges that the Civil Aviation Authority had been obliged to impose by financial limitations.

Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for the Under-Secretary of State and for the Government to be euphoric over this aspect of their policy? This very morning the Government were soundly and resoundingly beaten in the Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill. That indicates the foolishness of Government policy in civil aviation.

11 pm

Mr. George Robertson: I knew that the Civil Aviation Bill was in Committee and that the Government were defeated today. However, I have spent today attending the Tenants' Rights, Etc (Scotland) Bill. I have not a clue on which issue the Government were defeated. I doubt whether it has anything to do with highlands and islands development. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) who represents the interests of the Lowland airfields. There is a contrast between the Government's normal


parsimonious attitude to public spending and the glowing term "relief for Highlands airfields" that featured in such grand terms in the speech by the Minister.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am a member of the Civil Aviation Bill Committee. Is it suggested that the Government should withdraw the £1 million facility?

Mr. Robertson: I do not see what this has to do with the Civil Aviation Bill Committee. I do not suggest that one penny should be removed from the £1 million. But the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) might consider that some local authorities are being told by the Government that they must slash their expenditure on a variety of transport programmes. They must have looked askance at the headlines and the smiling faces in The Scotsman.
Through the large cuts in the rate support grant this year the Government told local authorities, either formally or informally, that road and road maintenance programmes were to be cut. They told local authorities in Scotland, England and Wales that they must make substantial savings on school transport. Not one Conservative Scottish Member went into the Lobby with us to vote against that Government proposal, although we were supported by Members from south of the border.
The implications of the Government's lack of transport policy must be judged against public support for air services to the Highlands and Islands. I wonder how the Government can justify an extra £1 million expenditure on the Highlands airfields to provide the most expensive form of transport for the remote rural areas at a time when Scottish transport has had its resources curtailed, when the railways are under increasing pressure to cut rural transport and when school transport and road programmes are under siege.
Normally, we consider such a measure in the Scottish Grand Committee, but the Government dare not present their proposals to that Committee. They believe that even a Bill of five clauses would become stuck there, so fierce would be the debate. The Government are outnumber-

of a transport policy in all the other areas that affect the majority of people who travel in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
ed in the Scottish Grand Committee. They are trying now, in the dead of night and before other important measures are debated, to get clear of the legislative programme as quickly as possible.
Clause 1 highlights the serious aspect of Highland transport as a whole. No doubt the Government will claim credit tomorrow for a Bill that was originally created by a Labour Government, while at the same time they will ignore the increasing vocal criticism about their lack

Mr. John MacKay: It appears to me that the only reason why we are debating at this time of night is that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is so used to filibustering in Committee that he cannot stop doing so on the Floor of the House. When I closed my eyes, ever so slightly, I received the distinct impression that the green Benches opposite had turned into green cheese at the thought of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland being able to make the announcement that he made in Edinburgh two or three weeks ago. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has had his stereotype of the Government so badly spoiled tonight, and during the past few weeks.
On behalf of my constituents, who are involved in air transport, I welcome the Bill. I hope that they do not read the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton. He, of all people, should know better, having in his youth—as he explained earlier, in a moving exposition of his early days—lived on one of the islands in my constituency. Unfortunately that did not do his political education much good.
I welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend that is allied to the Bill—because aeroplanes need somewhere to land—that he intends not only to continue to help the Civil Aviation Authority but to increase the grant this year from £1.1 million to £21 million. I was not surprised at that announcement, because my hon. Friend made it clear on 18 December in the Scottish Grand Committee that he had no intention of allowing the grant for the Civil Aviation


Authority to disappear, but that he had every intention of ensuring that it would carry on its work.
I regret to say that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), at a meeting in Edinburgh, cast severe doubts upon my hon. Friend's good faith. I am delighted that my hon. Friend's good faith has been seen to be perfectly justified. I told my constituents that they could look to my hon. Friend for help in the matter of the Civil Aviation Authority grant, and my confidence in him has been absolutely justified.
Without being too much out of order, I suggest that if you, Mr. Weatherill, fly to my constituency with the help of the Government's Bill and the Civil Aviation Authority, you may also be able to return by sea with the help of a further increase in the subsidy paid to Caledonian-MacBrayne, announced by my hon. Friend this week. You could do a round tour of my beautiful constituency with the help of my hon. Friend's sensible methods of subsidising the transport in those areas where transport is difficult. In those areas, my constituents would find it difficult to pursue any sort of reasonable economic life if it were not for the help given by the Government in this specialist area.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend for that help. I commend the clause to the House. I hope that the Opposition will give grudging support—I accept that it has to be grudging—to the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) has not been in the House long enough. If he had he would have recognised that sometimes, when dealing with problems that affect the Highlands and Islands, it is necessary to adopt a somewhat less partisan stance.
If he had done me justice he would have acknowledged that it was on a motion of mine, at the meeting in Edinburgh to which he referred, that it was agreed that representations should be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The meeting at which the Minister announced the bounty of an extra £1 million was a direct result of the motion that I put to the earlier meeting. As far as I can remember, the Minister was not at that meeting to support my motion.
The question that arises out of clause 1

relates to the circumstances in which the Government might foresee the use of the Bill in future. Much has been made of the fact that so far a total sum of only £500,000 has been used under the Scottish Development Agency legislation, which the Bill replaces, over a period of five years, and that only £100,000 was used last year. But during that five-year period, British Airways and Loganair largely divided up the Highlands and Islands air routes between them, and British Airways still remain responsible for many of what are now called the third-tier sectors. That is decreasingly so. Therefore, the internal losses that were subsidised, and I believe to some extent offset, by the more profitable routes of British Airways will no longer enjoy similar cross-subsidisation.
One of the difficulties that British Airways faced was the doubt whether this was an appropriate use of its financial powers. The question therefore arises whether small companies coming into these third-tier sector flights will be able to sustain losses of the kind that were sustained over many years by British Airways in operating these flights throughout the Highlands and Island. One such link is that between Wick and Aberdeen, and another is that between Wick and Inverness—routes that suffered heavy losses over a number of years but in respect of which British Airways continued to provide a service.
Those services have now been taken over by Loganair, in the case of Wick-Inverness, and by Air Ecosse, in the case of Wick-Aberdeen. With regard to Wick-Inverness, Loganair has received subsidy from the local authority, but I understand that the local authority is reluctant to go ahead with that in the future and that there may be an application from Air Ecosse to take over that route. In the circumstances, the question must arise whether it can be run profitably, or whether it will require a central Government subsidy in the absence of a local government subsidy to maintain these links.
Although in the past the sum involved was only £100,000 a year, it could be a substantially larger sum that is sought. Can the Minister say whether the criteria that the Government have laid down for the use of these central Government subsidies are wide enough to enable firms such as Air Ecosse or


Loganair to continue to fly routes that have hitherto been subsidised by local authorities? I am not entirely clear what statutory underpinnings these criteria have, or whether, in essence, they are simply the codification of the Secretary of State's discretion. If that is the case, no doubt the Secretary of State can alter the criteria in order to take account of changed circumstances.
Can the Minister also say whether, in the light of changing financial and economic circumstances, it is appropriate to look at all to the local authority for financial help for these routes, or whether it would not be better for central Government to shoulder the responsibility? After all, these links are largely used for the provision of services. Although air links throughout the Highlands and Islands are very important—indeed, in some respects crucial—to the provision of services, the maintenance of connections with governmental centres, and the provision of supplies and transport for business men coming in and out, they are not used by the general travelling public to the same extent as is the other unsubsidised transport in the Highlands and Islands, such as road transport. We must therefore ask whether it would be sensible to remove the powers from local government and to look to the Secretary of State for subsidisation in the future.
11.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is correct. There is great irony in the Government making play of their generosity in subsidising air transport, which, although of great importance, is not the form of transport that most people in the Highlands and Islands use. It is regrettable that so little money is available and that the principle embodied in the Bill is not being extended more widely.
In some respects the Government are contracting the availability of central Government subsidy, notably through the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Bill on transport in the rural areas. That has been roundly condemned in the Highlands and Islands. However, I hope that the Minister will attach himself to my point about the criteria and about the desirability of central Government subsidy rather than local government subsidy at this time.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who obviously suggests that the help being provided under the Bill and the help that is being given to the Civil Aviation Authority is contrary to the Government's statement of policy on such matters. If he will read the manifesto on which the Government fought and won the last general election, he will see a specific commitment to ensure the viability of Scotland's island community. That was a specific commitment into which the Government entered.
In relation to both this matter and the commitment to move towards a road equivalent tariff in Scotland, the Government indicated in advance that in terms of the viability of Scotland's island community they saw no objection, or much advantage, in giving help to the Islands for the purposes indicated.
Indeed, there is a clear distinction between help of that kind to preserve the viability of an island community and to help particular industrial concerns where viability on an industrial or economic level is a separate issue. The Government made that clear in their election manifesto. The help that we have been giving has honoured that commitment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) indicated in his contribution to the debate.
I turn to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the criteria under which help is given and might be given in the future. He is correct in saying that there are no statutory criteria. Nevertheless, certain criteria were applied when the decision to help Loganair was made by the previous Administration. We would be unlikely to want to change those criteria, because they are relevant and sensible.
There are basically four conditions that have to be fulfilled before the Secretary of State will consider aid to be appropriate. First, the air service in question should cross regional boundaries, and not therefore be the responsibility of any one authority. Secondly, it should cross water, thus providing a fast alternative to surface transport. Thirdly, the route should be uneconomic. Fourthly, and perhaps most important, the air service should be essential to the life of remote communities. If there are further applications in the


future which meet those criteria, the Secretary of State would consider them sympathetically. I have not yet heard anything, either tonight or elsewhere, to suggest that the criteria are basically unfair or unsound. The Government retain an open mind, and if evidence is brought—

Mr. Donald Stewart: On the question of Loganair, may I draw the Under-Secretary's attention, and through him, the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, to the fact that Loganair is suffering severely under the penalty for the type of fuel that it uses, which is essential for the short journeys that it makes. It has agreed that if it receives a concession it will be passed on to the passengers in toto. In fairness, the Exchequer should be reducing fuel costs to Loganair. That would assist the airline and the passengers.

Mr. Rifkind: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has made representations to the Treasury. This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt he will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's views.
The Government feel that the present criteria are fair. They are sensible, because they emphasise that assistance should be given only when it is essential to the viability of an island community. It is highly probable that any further or future applications for assistance will be judged on that basis.

Mr. Maclennan: I ask the Minister to consider again the two examples to which I drew his attention, namely, Wick-Inverness and Wick-Aberdeen. The latter route appears to fall squarely within the criteria that he has described. In fact, an island community is not involved. The first route does not fall into the criteria because it neither crosses water nor spans two local authorities. I cannot see what issue of principle separates the two routes. Both are important. One links Wick with the regional area's headquarters, while the other links Wick with another part of the North, which is important for administrative and commercial purposes. It seems slightly nonsensical that one of the routes might be eligible for central Government assistance and the other not. It seems that the criteria require revision

in the light of the change circumstances to which I drew attention, especially the difficulty that local government faces in financing routes of this sort.

Mr. Rifkind: Specific applications concerning these routes have been submitted to by right hon. Friend. If and when any applications are made we shall consider them in the light of the criteria and in the light of any other relevant factors that are felt appropriate in coming to a decision. The criteria are not rigid or statutory. If a convincing case is advanced for departing from the criteria, it is within the power of the Secretary of State to decide accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE

'For the financial year ending on 31st March 1981 and for each subsequent year the Secretary of State shall prepare a report on the discharge of his functions under this Act and shall lay the report before Parliament not later than six months after the end of the financial year to which it relates.'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the clause is to provide for the preparation of an annual report by the Secretary of State on the discharge of his functions under the Bill. This would be a normal recurring feature. The amounts that we are talking about may not seem large. They are not large by the standards by which public expenditure is usually measured. On the other hand, there is at least the prospect that the sums that could be available could be increased. If circumstances prevail, it is clear from the Government's apparent generosity in the past two weeks that they might make such money available.
It is only right that the Secretary of State should, as he does in so many other areas in which he has a responsibility, make a report to Parliament on how the money was spent and to which carriers the money was directed. Perhaps consideration will be given within the report


to the level of fares charged, the standard of service that is being provided and the level of complaints that might have been received by the Secretary of State. It would provide the Secretary of State with a forum for debate and discussion each year. It would establish a standard whereby the public and Parliament could consider the methods by which the Secretary of State has use of these powers.
This is not a controversial issue. The language that I have used in formulating the new clause is specifically taken from the provisions of the Industry Act 1972, the Conservative Government measure that instituted a number of unique phenomena in industrial investment. The principle has been established in many pieces of legislation. It seems that we would be strengthening the methods by which consultation takes place in these important areas of public policy if the Secretary of State, as part of this legislation, were to explain to Parliament and to the Public how he has spent the taxpayers' money. That would provide them with the means of making their view known on whether they think that the money has been spent wisely and properly on their behalf.

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot advise the Committee to accept this amendment, for a

number of reasons. First, the powers existed for four years under the previous Administration. At no time did they consider it appropriate that a return of this kind should be made, and the hon. Gentleman has not indicated why the Opposition have changed their minds now. Secondly, the information is already available in the annual return of the Scottish Development Agency. Thirdly, anyone who wants this modest amount of information can obtain it through the normal processes of the House. To produce a statutory obligation would involve expense, time and resources that are not necessary, given that the information is already available to anyone interested in obtaining it.
Therefore, I advise the Committee not to accept the new clause.

Question put, and negatived.

Bill reported, with an amendment; amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in operation for a further period of 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which will lapse, unless renewed, on 25 March.
The House will know that I do not put this proposal forward as a matter of routine. Like my predecessor, as the person who has to operate the Act I feel that I am responsible for it and that I must justify it personally to the House at whatever time the House chooses to debate it. It is my duty to report on it personally, and I accept that.
My previous experience, both in opposition and in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, my experience since last May, as Home Secretary—has given me a firm basis from which to propose this renewal. While later on I want to give my view of the present terrorist threat that we face, and the role that this Act can play in combating it, I propose, first, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to report to the House on the use that has been made of the Act in the past year. This will provide the House with a basis for its consideration of the draft order. For the convenience of the House I hope, if it is required, to reply to any points raised by hon. Members at the end of the debate.
Part I of the Act makes it an offence to take part in the activities of a proscribed organisation or to collect funds for it. Until this year only the IRA was proscribed in Great Britain. On 3 July 1979 the Irish National Liberation Army was added to the list. This followed the murder of Airey Neave in the precincts of this House on 30 March.
No one would claim that merely proscribing a terrorist organisation will stop its more hardened members from operating; the value of proscription lies elsewhere. It has a deterrent effect on people on the fringes of a group's activity; it puts a clear legal obstacle in the way of raising funds or seeking publicity; and it

marks out those organisations whose acts of violence against the community are abhorrent to the people of this country and prevents them from operating under the cloak of legality.
This act of rejection and the ban on self-publicity that accompanies it is of considerable importance. Everything that the terrorist does, ranging all the way from giving interviews on television to acts of murder in the streets, is aimed at influencing public opinion to bring about a change in policy.
Part II of the Act gives me certain powers and enables me to exercise them so as to prevent acts of terrorism, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland.
Under section 4 I am empowered to prohibit a person from being in or entering this country if I am satisfied that he or she has been or may be involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Between 29 November 1974 and 29 February this year a total of 220 exclusion orders had been made, 54 of them in the past 12 months. The power to exclude is an executive one and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. I have to weigh the need to protect the public against the adverse consequences for the individual of preventing him from entering Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Therefore, I must be absolutely satisfied on each application that the person concerned has been involved in terrorism and that the safety of this country requires his exclusion.

Mr. James Kilfedder: If Mr. Charles Haughey, the present Prime Minister of Eire, came to this country, would he be excluded, in view of the fact that he was caught up in the IRA arms trial some years ago?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, I would not suggest that.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Does the right hon. Gentleman not have powers to exclude people under other legislation than this?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am talking about the powers under this legislation. That is what we are addressing our minds to


tonight. I hope that I can proceed with what I have to say, because the time for the debate is limited. Hon. Members will have their chances. The more time that I take up the less time they will have, so I think that it would be better for me not to give way unless it is absolutely essential.
There can be no doubt that to exclude someone from Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole, if he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is to infringe his civil liberties. For this reason the Act provides for my decision to be considered, if the excluded person so desires, by an independent adviser, who then gives me the benefit of his opinion.
Altogether 37 people against whom exclusion orders have been made have had their cases considered by an adviser. As a result, 12 orders have been revoked; six other orders have also been revoked for other reasons, making a total of 18 revocations since the Act came into force. In the past year, of a total of 54 cases in which an exclusion order was made, 14 were seen by an adviser following representations and in five of those cases—of which four fell to be considered as a group—the orders were revoked. The rest were confirmed. Of the 199 people removed under exclusion orders since November 1974, 167–44 in the past year—went to Northern Ireland and 32—five in the past year—to the Republic of Ireland.
I mentioned the work done by my advisers, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Alport and Mr. John Newey, QC, for dealing so promptly and thoroughly with the cases referred to them.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: How promptly?

Mr. Whitelaw: Very promptly. Their help is invaluable.

Mr. Mikardo: How many weeks?

Mr. Whitelaw: Very quickly. I shall find out and let the hon. Gentleman know the exact time in most cases, if he so wishes.
As well as conferring powers on me the Act gives the police power to detain a suspected person for questioning both

inland and at the ports. Section 12 empowers them to detain anyone whom they reasonably suspect has committed an offence under the Act or is involved in terrorism.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitelaw: No. I want to give time for as many hon. Members as possible to take part and I shall only harm their chances if I give way.
The police can detain a person for up to 48 hours in right of arrest and they use this time to consider whether there is enough evidence to charge him with a criminal offence, whether an applicaion should be made to me for his exclusion, or whether he should be released.
It is sometimes said that the Act is unnecessary because the police have adequate powers without it to deal with terrorists under the criminal law and that it is a measure of the Act's failure that detention under it does not necessarily result in a prosecution. It is also said that people who are excluded because I am satisfied that they are involved in terrorism walk free once they are excluded. But exclusion is not an alternative to a prosecution; it is a supplement to it. If a prosecution can be brought, it will be brought.
Moreover, the purpose of exclusion is, as the title of the Act states, to prevent terrorism. It creates some specific offences designed to bring terrorists and their supporters more directly within the ambit of the law. It gives the police the time that they need to investigate the possibility of bringing substantive criminal charges, and it enables me to remove potentially dangerous people before they have a chance to perpetrate violence. Nevertheless, a number of charges do follow detention under the Act.
From the time that the Act came into force in 1974 up to 29 February this year a total of 307 people—51 of them in the past 12 months—have been charged after detention with various offences, including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to cause explosions, offences under the Firearms Act, robbery and theft, and offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act itself.
I have said that the police can detain for up to 48 hours in right of arrest,


and that applies both inland and at the ports. It sometimes happens that a period of 48 hours is insufficient to enable the police to complete their inquiries. For example, the preliminary examination may have revealed some indication of involvement in terrorism and the police may need time to assess the weight and the extent of that information and decide what action to take. In those circumstances, the police can come to me or to the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ask for the period of detention to be extended by up to five days.
A total of 4,586 people—724 in the past 12 months—have been detained in Great Britain since the Act came into force in 1974 and in 549 of these cases—170 of them in the past year—an extension of detention was granted.
Hon. Members will recall that renewal of the Act was last debated in conjuncfor Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), also con-piled by Lord Shackleton. As a result of Lord Shackleton's recommendations the period of detention at ports was brought into line with that inland, and advice was given to chief officers of police aimed at improving the conditions under which people are detained and ensuring that the fullest possible records are kept of interviews with detained persons.
My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) also considered whether to accept Lord Shackle-ton's recommendation that section 11 of the Act, which makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorism, should be dropped, and concluded that for the time being it should not. He did, however, say that the position would be reviewed in a year's time.
I have accepted that commitment and have considered whether section 11 could be dropped. I have consulted the police, who are firmly of the view that section 11 is still an important weapon in the struggle against terrorism. The fact is that a total of 13 charges have been brought under section 11 since it came into force in 1976, 12 of them in January 1979. Having considered the matter very carefully, I have concluded that section 11 should be retained.
The only other recommendation outstanding from Lord Shackleton's review is that consideration should be given to a scheme for assisting the families of excluded persons. I have considered the possibility of providing assistance towards the removal expenses of such families, but I have come to the conclusion that such a scheme could not be justified.
Lord Shackleton also recommended that exclusion orders should be reviewed after a period to see whether they could be revoked. I agree with that recommendation. If a person who has clearly given up his involvement in terrorisrm wishes to come to this country he should be allowed to do so. Accordingly, I announced on 18 June last year that work was now being put in hand to review all exclusion orders three years after the date of their making.
Up to the end of February this year, of the 83 people who were eligible to have their case reviewed 23 asked for review. As a result, I have revoked one order and decided that 11 should remain in force. The rest are still being considered. Before revoking an order I need to be satisfied that the person concerned has ceased his involvement in terrorism and that it would now be safe to give him unrestricted access to this country. In making that judgment I have to take into account the current level of threat to this country from the Provisional IRA and other groups.
Before I ask the House to consider my assessment of that threat and the reasons why I seek the renewal of this Act I have one procedural change to announce. It relates to the Prevention of Terrorism (Places of Detention) Direction 1976. At present the direction provides that prior to removal an excluded person may be detained in police custody for a maximum of seven days from the time of his arrest under the Act. Thereafter he must be held in prison until removed. Sometimes it is not possible to serve the exclusion order papers on the person concerned before the seven days have run out. In those cases, even if the excluded person has already consented to removal from the country he has to be taken to a prison until the papers can be served on him.
It therefore seems sensible to provide, as I have done in the new direction which will come into force on 25 March, that


an excluded person may be held for a further 24 hours in police custody if arrangements are being made for his removal within that time. I shall place a copy of the new direction in the Library of the House.
I come now to the reasons why I firmly believe that we need to preserve for another year the powers that this Act gives us in the fight against terrorism. We should of course all prefer, from the point of view of civil liberties, to see those powers brought to an end, but the fact is that the violence that this Act is designed to prevent is still a threat.
The determination of violent men to gain their ends by the use of terror both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere has continued in the last year. Sir Richard Sykes, our ambassador to the Netherlands, was shot dead in the Hague on 22 March 1979. Airey Neave was blown up by a car bomb as he left this House on 30 March. Earl Mountbatten of Burma, together with members of his family and a family friend, were brutally murdered off the coast of Ireland on 27 August, and on the same day 18 soldiers were murdered at Warren point, in Northern Ireland. In June, letter bombs in Birmingham injured four people. More letter bombs were sent from Belgium on 13 December, three of which exploded, causing injury to two Belgian postal workers and burns to two of our postal workers.
Nor has violence been confined to the Republican terrorist organisations. Members of the Ulster Volunteer Force carried out pub bombings in Glasgow in February 1979, which injured five people, while the number of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland increased significantly in the last quarter of 1979.
The police have an extremely difficult task in protecting society from men such as these. I have the greatest admiration for the work that the police do, and I am sure that the House will wish to join me in recognising the contribution that they make, often at great risk to themselves, in protecting us. The diligent and often dangerous work of preventing violence is the best possible way to tackle the terrorist. I believe that this House has a clear duty to provide the police with an effective framework of law within which they can protect society.
I am in no doubt that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should be renewed for another year. The threat of terrorism has not receded. Indeed, in admitting responsibility for the murder of Colonel Coe in Bielefeld on 16 February, and again in the past week, the Provisional IRA indicated that it would repeat such attacks whenever it could. I know that we would all agree that the sooner we can do without this Act the better, but the time is not yet. I ask the House to acknowledge that, and agree to renew the Act for a further year.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The primary legislation on which the order is based covers the whole of the United Kingdom, as the Home Secretary explained, and other Secretaries of State are therefore involved. I shall confine my remarks to the powers used in England and Wales and, to some degree Scotland, but I shall briefly conclude by mentioning Northern Ireland.
The renewal of such an Act must make us consider whether it is still required. It is concerned only with terrorism arising from the problems in Northern Ireland. It is not designed to deal with the spill-over from the Middle East, which is to some degree manifest in this country. Fortunately, we have not experienced terrorism arising from issues in Great Britain.
Does terrorism still exist? The right hon. Gentleman gave details of incidents, some in the past but also the letter bombs and tragic killings last year, including that within the Houses of Parliament.
The Official IRA has not, as far as I am aware, been involved in violence in this country since the Aldershot killings. The Provisional IRA, which is a break away anti-Marxist group, as it puts it, certainly has. INLA, which is associated with the political wing of the IRSP, has certainly been involved in violence. The UVF, which is a Protestant group, has been involved in violence in Scotland, to some degree in Liverpool, and on one occasion in London.
Although not a very important point, it is six years ago today since I went out in this country or elsewhere without an armed man alongside me. I know that terrorism exists. No one believes


that it does not. The question is, what laws are needed to deal with it?
I shall deal briefly with the various aspects of the Act. Regarding the exclusion orders, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that a person:
is or has been concerned…in the commission preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is attempting or may attempt to enter…with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
I believe that that is a reasonable test.
For example, there are those in the Maze prison who have identified themselves by the nature of their organisation in prison as members of such organisations. I want to be sure that when such people arrive in this country they are asked why they have come. That is an elementary test, whether under this or any other legislation. The exclusion orders are a necessary part. We know why the movement takes place. It is important to contact people in this country.
My information is out of date, but perhaps I can speak more freely. Until a year ago I was informed of groups' movements and was told that contact had been lost. Information was not coming readily. There were groups moving around in different parts of the country. Although I do not know the details, I am sure that the arrests that were made in December 1979 prevented bombing from taking place in this country. The legislation was important in that respect.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which was inserted into the legislation as a result of Back-Bench activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) moved the amendment, which the Government then took over. It was based on section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which deals with penalties for assisting offenders. This power in the Act is not foreign to the law. Nevertheless, Lord Shackleton recommended that it should lapse. When I was Home Secretary I said that I would consider it within the year.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was satisfied that the provision was necessary. Perhaps in winding-up he could explain in more detail why he thinks that section 11 is necessary. I

considered the matter a year ago and left it open. I respect what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I now refer to section 12, and arrest without warrant and detention for up to 48 hours and for a further five days with the Home Secretary's approval. The procedures are the same. I turn to the most important intervention. Many allegations are made about ill treatment while a person is held. Ill treatment does not arise as a result of the legislation. If there were ill treatment it would arise whether or not this legislation were on the statute book.
Today I checked. The judges' rules apply to detention under the Act and access to solicitors. I assume that that provision still applies. Under the judges' rules communication with friend and relatives is permitted. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) deny that those matters come under the judges' rules? It would help me if he would say so.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the judges' rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Mr. Rees: That is a matter for the Minister.
Many of my hon. Friends will remember the occasion when we discussed whether friends and relatives were being notified if someone was held longer than the normal period. The following provision was inserted as section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977:
Where any person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled to have intimation of his arrest and of the place where he is being held sent to one person reasonably named by him, without delay or, where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary.
What was important was that at that time it was requested that the various police forces send reports to the Home Office. There was a certain amount of grumbling by many individual policemen that I met in different parts of the country, who claimed that yet again they were spending their time filling in forms rather than acting as policemen. In the end a relatively simple form was devised


and submitted to the Home Office.
The hon. Member for Burton gave his view on whether, under the judges' rules, the information about the number of people who are held without being allowed to contact a person reasonably named is now known to the Home Office. The figures had not emerged in any detail, as I recall, before I left the Home Office. It is most important that we should know something about those returns because allegations are made and they depend on whether people are allowed to contact a person so reasonably named.

Mr. Parry: A short time ago one of my constituents was held, and his wife, who was six months pregnant, came to me in great distress and asked if her husband was held by the Merseyside police in the Day Street police station. When I asked the police they refused at first to comment. I pressed them, and eventually they agreed that he had been held and later released.

Mr. Rees: That is precisely the point that I am referring to, but I tell my hon Friend that there is power in the legislation. Where a family is not notified the Home Office monitors the figures, so that the extent of the omission and the reason for it are known.
On this, again, it is important that we should know the result of the Home Office investigation.
There are allegations about ill treatment, but in my view they do not arise out of this legislation. They would arise even if the legislation were not on the statute book. Nobody is suggesting that if a person is suspected of being involved in terrorism he or she should not be held by the police. What is at issue here is whether it should be under this legislation.
With regard to the position at the ports, the increase in the size of the Special Branch in recent years is due to the fact that we have an advantage over the Continental Powers, in that it is possible for us to keep an eye on the ports. The increase in the Special Branch is largely for this purpose. It is known that there has been a change in the activities of the Provisional IRA, certainly. Of course, it is sometimes extremely difficult, because when Mr. Airey Neave was

killed the Provisional IRA claimed credit for it within a number of hours, and sometimes people claim credit when they have not been involved. But there was a movement a year ago, with the Provisional IRA moving into Western Europe because of the difficulty of moving around this country when 99 per cent. or more of the population—unlike the position in other parts of the United Kingdom—are prepared to co-operate with the police and information comes freely even from the Irish community.
There is no doubt that the Provisional IRA have moved into Western Europe, and probably they no longer come in transit through London airport, where observation is carried out, but go by other routes into Western Europe, and because the Irish Republic is a member of the EEC there is freedom of movement without documentation straight into Western Europe itself.
The co-operation of the police forces of this country, and particularly Scotland Yard, with the police forces in the Low Countries and Western Germany is developing because some of the activities that have taken place, including the shooting of the corporal last week and of the officer some weeks ago, are an indication that the target is easier in Western Europe that in this island community, where it is much more difficult to get through.
I said at the beginning that I should like to refer very briefly to the question of the use of this legislation in Northern Ireland. I shall not go into it in detail. I simply want to ask a question and make a suggestion.
The right hon. Gentleman does not apply this Act in Northern Ireland, neither does the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does. From time to time we debate the Northern Ireland emergency provisions legislation in the House. It is more appropriate that section 12 of the Act and the other parts of the United Kingdom legislation should be discussed when we are debating Northern Ireland because the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and this legislation mesh together.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that the time has come to look at certain aspects


of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, but tonight is not the time to do so. All I am arguing is that we cannot have a sensible discussion on the use of this legislation in Northern Ireland because the whole nature of our discussion is in the context of its use in England and Wales and to some degree in Scotland, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here tonight. There may be other methods by which that could be debated.
In this country we decided to use legislation of this nature. In Northern Ireland there is the emergency provisions legislation. It would be worth while for just a moment or two to look at the legislation in other countries, because what is at issue is whether this is the appropriate legislation. I am sure that we should not follow the legislation that is used in the Republic of Ireland, with the special courts and powers that are far more Draconian than are ours.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: There are no exclusion orders there.

Mr. Rees: It is true that exclusion orders do not apply in the Republic of Ireland, but I invite the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to look at the legislation overall. I simply say that the Southern Irish legislation is not the sort of legislation that we should have.
The Irish Government take seriously the fact that the Provisional IRA is the enemy of that country. On several occasions when the Secretary of State and I, in opposition, have had something to do with the Provisional IRA, the Government of the South made abundantly clear that they did not like an independent power near them dealing with the Provisional IRA, which was an enemy of the three major political parties in that country. They feel so strongly about it that they have legislation that is very different from ours. The legislation that we need is the sort of legislation that we have had for four or five years, with the changes that I announced last year and the change that the right hon. Gentleman announced tonight. There is a terrorist problem, but tonight we are not discussing the political aspect. Our concern tonight is to renew this legislation, and I am sure that it should be renewed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Like his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done the House a service by coming here to justify personally the extension of these Draconian powers. As he said, no one likes them and they should exist only while they are indispensable to the safety of our country.
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's approach to the Shackleton recommendations. He is right to retain section 11. No one likes it, but it is of considerable assistance to the police service, in which I declare an interest. My right hon. Friend has taken the right decision in agreeing to review all the exclusion orders after three years in each case, but both he and his officials in one sense have made a stick for their backs.
I can think of no more difficult decision than to agree to relieve from an exclusion order any person who may have been at any time guilty of terrorism. I remember our colleague, Mr. Reginald Maudling, saying to me once that he found it much more difficult to agree to let out of gaol a person who had committed some terrible offence when the Parole Board recommended his discharge that it was, in many cases, to put the man in in the first place. The securing of the public, which must come first, has always to be balanced against any rights of a person to be relieved of an exclusion order.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision but I am bound to say that he will have many exceedingly difficult choices to make. I hope that he will invariably err on the side of caution.
I should like to turn to three questions that, because of the pressure of time, I can put to my right hon. Friend briefly. Can he say more about the incidents in Germany? I follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the former Home Secretary, in suspecting that because security has improved here there is a great deal more of a problem in terrorists, or would-be terrorists, who circulate in Western Europe.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can say anything about the evidence that now seems forthcoming of collaboration between terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and those in Italy and Germany and in the Middle East. Proof is difficult


to establish. I cannot help feeling, however, that there is more collaboration both in the procurement of weapons and in intelligence among the terrorist organisations of Europe, the Middle East and, perhaps, the IRA than most hon. Members may recognise.
I should like to direct my right hon. Friend's attention to section 10 of the original Act. It says:
If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person…any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that the money or other property will or may be applied or used for…the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism…he shall be guilty of an offence.
I cannot think of a more precise description of some of the actions that take place in the United States where people give, lend or otherwise make available to other persons money or other property that will or may be applied for the preparation of acts of terrorism. During my visit to the United States this summer I became aware, as, I am sure, did many other hon. Members, of the auctioning of a rifle among Irish groups in New York. That rifle had been allegedly used to kill between 20 and 30 British police and Service men. It was reported that the rifle was auctioned in New York for about $100,000. That money was used, directly or indirectly, to procure weapons used to terrorise innocent people in this country.
I pay my tribute to the authorities in the United States who are now doing their best to limit the flow of arms or money from the United States to the IRA. I believe that increasing success has been achieved by the Americans and by ourselves. It is regrettably the fact that moneys from the United States, one way or another, are being used to procure weapons from third countries—for example, North Africa or the Middle East—which, sooner or later, arrive in Northern Ireland and are used for terrorism. I believe that the United States needs to do a little more in restricting the actions of its citizens in procuring moneys that, according to the language of section 10, would instigate terrorist acts.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not it unwise, to put it mildly, for the Secretary of State quite so quickly to snub the offers of help that came genuinely

from Governor Carey and Mr. Speaker O'Neill?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that I can agree with that. I had the pleasure of speaking to Governor Carey and Senator Kennedy about this issue in New York. On the whole their interventions have not been helpful.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he had to consider all the acts that might be calculated to advance the cause of terrorism. He mentioned interviews on television. Having spent much of my life newsgathering and editing, I should be the last person to want to restrict a free press and television. I should be grateful, however, if my right hon. Friend could say a word about the BBC's policy in respect of the televising of interviews with terrorist leaders.
Are enough officers available to the Special Branch and the security services? There has been a welcome strengthening. There are enormous demands on the police service here and in Northern Ireland to deal with the rising tide of crime, the threats to public order from extreme Right and Left and with drug running. May we have an assurance that, having had 10 months to examine the morale, organisation and efficiency of the Special Branch and the special services, the Government are satisfied that they have the numbers and resources to do the job?

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Many of my colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall restrict my remarks. The legislation is regarded as racist by many Irish people in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. They fear that it is directed against the Irish population in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The numbers involved prove that. Since the Act was passed 4,500 people in Great Britain have been arrested and 91 per cent. have been freed without a charge against them. In Northern Ireland, 733 people have been arrested under the Act and only 38 have been charged—and they were charged under section 11.
Over 90 per cent. of those charged, detained and interrogated are innocent of any crime. That is causing a serious situation. I recognise that it is easy to become intimidated by the atmosphere in


the House. If one opposes such legislation one fears that some people feel that one is trying to support those engaged in the war of violence. I hope that my bona fides show that I have never supported the men of violence. I am speaking on behalf of the innocent people.
I was disappointed at the rejection of that aspect of the legislation. I refer to the repugnant clause that permits exclusion orders within the United Kingdom. We have protested against the exile of Sakharov—but that is what is happening here. People are being excluded from one part of the United Kingdom and exiled to another. I am quite certain that that has been brought to the attention of the Home Secretary.
I wish to cite the case of one of my constituents. He is a reluctant constituent. For the past 19 years he has lived in Britain. He is married to an English girl, and he reared his family in Britain. Within the past two or three months he was arrested, taken into detention, and served with an exclusion order. He does not know why he was excluded, what the charges were, or what suspicions were laid against him.
He was taken, at the expense of the State, to Northern Ireland. His wife and children, who speak with English accents—some of his children have never visited Northern Ireland and his wife has been there on only one occasion—were left behind in Britain. Having been taken to Northern Ireland, he immediately came under suspicion there, not only by the security forces but by loyalist paramilitaries. He became an immediate target.
He was not given any priority for housing in Northern Ireland. I approached the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but it said that he was not entitled to a house because he was a stranger. He is unable to bring his furniture to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary told me that he had considered the case. If that is so, I hope that he will consider it again, this time with some humanity and compassion.
When Lord Shackleton considered the question of exclusion orders he said:
exclusion is not a judicial proceeding and it involves no charges, trial or court, nor is it a punishment.

If an exclusion order is not a punishment, I do not know what is.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Order.

Mr. Fitt: Why is the right hon. Gentleman shouting "Order"? He should go back to Banbridge.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member addressing the House to do so from the space immediately in front of the Gangway?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I did not observe that.

Mr. Fitt: If a person is excluded in such circumstances, and no charge has been proven against him, his wife and children should be allowed to join him. After all, the Russians allowed Sakharov's family to go to Gorky. Yet we are always proclaiming how just our British law is.
The question of exclusions is causing a great deal of distress, anger and resentment among the vast majority of Irish people in Britain. Their resentment can only be to the advantage of the Provisional IRA. That organisation builds on resentment. There may be extra recruitment to that organisation because of the injustice of the law on this matter.
I ask the Home Secretary again to reconsider the question of exclusion orders. He said that after three years there may be the possibility that the orders could be revoked. From my communications with him, I find that that is highly unlikely. If a person is excluded, his family should have the right—at the expense of the State—to join him.
There is an atmosphere of near-hysteria attached to the legislation—the way in which it is introduced, the way that it is debated, and the way that it is renewed. If someone is charged under the Act, there is a presumption on the part of the British people that he is guilty before he appears in court. I know that many of my hon. Friends are frightened of this legislation. They regard it as repugnant and extremely distasteful, but they are afraid to take their conscience into the Lobby in case some of their constituents point the finger and say that in some way they are giving support to terrorist organisations.
I detest the Provisional IRA and its men of violence, but so long as this legislation remains on the statute book many innocent men and women will remain in prison. One of them, Mr. Conlon, died just recently. I believe that he died because of the atmosphere that surrounds this legislation. I can tell the Home Secretary that many people in Northern Ireland, who will have nothing to do with the Provisional IRA, will not rest for a second until they have proven Mr. Conlon not guilty.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I welcome the attitude that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken in regard to this serious topic. He showed in his remarks—I am sure that every hon. Member would agree—that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is not a piece of legislation that any of us wants to see on the statute book for a moment longer than is necessary.
I read the Act with care, and I re-read it this afternoon. My view, in contrast to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—whose courage and integrity is not in doubt—is that the principle of exclusion orders is an acceptable one. After all, the oldest sanction in the British legal system—I think that it is nearly 900 years old—is that of binding over to keep the peace.
As magistrates, including myself, over the centuries have never hesitated to do, we can bind over a person who is threatening to make trouble and in the course of so doing we can restrict him to a particular neighbourhood or forbid him to go into a particular neighbourhood. In effect, that is an exclusion order but, like the exclusion order, it does not carry any imputation of guilt on whom it is imposed. That is not to say that anyone likes exclusion orders, but I do not think that we can describe them properly as wholly alien to the British legal and executive system.
However, I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in hoping that by the end of this evening my right hon. Friend will have answered

many of the fears that have been expressed by those who feel that the Act imposes an intolerable burden on those who come into conflict with it. For example, it is apparent that of the 4,000 or so people who have been detained under the Act only a tiny number have been convicted of any offence. That does not necessarily reflect badly on the Act. As the Home Secretary said, the reason for detention is not that a crime is suspected or that a charge for any offence will be brought. But that feeling is there, and this House exists to redress grievances if they are sincerely held.
There are also objections to the photographing and fingerprinting of the large number of people who are held in detention. I would support my right hon. Friend if he felt that it was necessary for that to be done, and for those records to be kept permanently after the individual concerned has been released.

Mr. Parry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the photographs and fingerprints of people who are released and found innocent should be kept on file? That is a disgrace.

Mr. Stevens: I intended to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to indicate in his reply whether or not those records are permanently kept. Clearly, in the normal course of events one would agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). However, I am simply asking for facts; I am not seeking to pass judgment.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to the difference between the letter of the law, and, in some cases, the spirit with which it is carried out. On the question of access to families and to lawyers, there is great bitterness among the Irish community in Britain, who feel that they are being singled out for specially harsh treatment. I hope that however firm the law requires us to be—I support any measure that the Home Secretary and the police may think it necessary to take to protect our fellow citizens against terrorism—the law in its execution will not be unnecessarily vindictive. The fewest possible hostages to fortune should be given in the way of restraints that are not lawful under the Act and that cause distress and resentment. I do not think that there would be disagreement about that.
I hope that the Home Secretary will say more about his decision on financial compensation. He knows more than I know about the deprivation of individuals and their families who are caught up in the detention and exclusion procedure. But to the man in the street it would seem that if a person is detained without charge and without guilt being alleged, and if as a result he or his family suffers financial loss, a great part of the resentment that is felt—rightly or wrongly—would be assuaged if the House demonstrated that it was willing to go some way towards compensating people for the loss that they suffered.
On the question of the necessity or otherwise of the Act, and the question whether other legislation is available, I endorse the judgment of the Home Secretary. The Act provides the police with powers, and there is evidence that it has helped them immeasurably in the containment of terrorism.
It is said that the Act has curtailed legitimate political activity. I should like to know whether the Home Secretary regards one of the effects of the Act as having prevented free speech by persons legitimately and sincerely seeking to contribute to the political debate. Is there a point at which the apprehension and detention and, if necessary, exclusion of persons with terrorist links may have impinged unnecessarily on the rights of political free speech?
Will the Home Secretary also tell us a little about the mechanism of the investigation that his nominees carry out when an exclusion order is under consideration? It is said that the accused person, or the person who is about to be made subject to such an order, has no opportunity to call any witness, to cross-examine any witness, or to have any idea of the alleged facts on which the Home Secretary's nominee gives his advice. I do not know the rights or the wrongs, but it would be helpful for the House to be reminded of the rights, if any, that a person has who is under consideration for such an order. We know that this is an Executive act and not a judicial one, and that the question of appeal to a court of law does not arise.
The anxieties that I have expressed and ventilated are held not only by the Irish community but by others. They

need to be answered. They should be answered, and I have no doubt that they will be answered tonight. However, they do not lead me to question the validity of the Act or the acceptable principles that lie behind it. If the implementation of the Act has not been as merciful as is consistent with safety in the past, I have no doubt that it will be in future.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I think that everyone in the House would like to see the Act leave the statute book as early as possible. However, I give full support to the Home Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in their request for its renewal. I do not believe that the time is right to do without it.
We are not playing a game; we are dealing with murderers, terrorists and those who are prepared to kill and maim innocent people at will. If we need an exceptional measure—as the Act is—to deal with such people, I support that measure.
I understand that a number of hon. Members propose to vote against renewal. I am rather shocked. I express the hope that none of them will ever have any IRA activity in their constituencies. I have had it in mine. I have suffered from the IRA in my constituency. I have had a policeman killed. I have had large quantities of arms and explosives discovered in my constituency. On one occasion a large quantity of extremely volatile explosives was discovered stored in a shed at the bottom of a multi-storey block of 104 fiats. If the whole lot had gone off the block might have come to the ground, killing hundreds of people. That was an example of the activity of the IRA.
It is sometimes said that we do not need the Act, but we must consider more than merely the number of people who are questioned and eventually prosecuted. There are two purposes in the Secretary of State's having the power of detention for 48 hours and the power of extension up to seven days. One purpose is to achieve prosecution, but the second purpose—possibly the more important—is to obtain information. There is much evidence that about 91 per cent. of those detained are eventually released. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to


tell us about the information that is gained because the Act remains on the Statute book. I have reason to believe that the store of explosives to which I have referred was discovered as a result of information obtained from someone who had knowledge but was not connected with that activity. It is important for the police to have this information so that they can prevent other terrorist activities and thereby save lives.
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said when he referred to people who are detained for up to seven days and eventually released without a charge being pressed. In certain circumstances some kind of financial compensation could be considered if that person loses his job or a week's pay. I think that that should be looked at sympathetically.
I hope that the Home Secretary will also reconsider the deportation or exclusion of an individual. There is an irony about deporting someone from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Perhaps some other area than Northern Ireland could be found to which such people could be deported. Having said that, when there is a deportation order, consideration should be given to helping the wife and children of the husband with travel and removal expenses so that they may join him.
I hope that the House will vote overwhelmingly in favour of continuing this Act for at least another year. I also hope and pray that the time will come when the Act will no longer be necessary, but in the light of my experience in my constituency I firmly believe that we still need the Act and that we need to give every support to the police in their campaign against terrorism.

Mr. Robert Parry: I completely disagree with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). From the line that he has taken it would seem that he is virtually supporting a police State. I know all about the IRA and the problems at our ports. Both the Dublin and Belfast boats berth in my constituency.
Since the Act has been on the statute book, 4,500 people have been detained

and arrested, 1,100 of them on Merseyside. That is more than a quarter of the total arrests that have been made. Of that 1,100 only four have been convicted under the Act.
In addition, 40 people have been convicted of other crimes, and I am convinced that they could have been dealt with under other Acts. About 40 people were thus excluded, leaving a total of more than 1,000 innocent people who were detained and later released.
I intervened earlier to explain the traumatic experience of one of my constituents, whose wife had approached me in tears. After I had pressed the police on the matter that gentleman was eventually released and no charge was brought against him. That young man was born in my constituency. I have known him all my life. He has never been involved in any terrorist activities and has not been a member of a proscribed organisation. He is a good-living man and a good Christian, who would not support such an organisation.
I detest terrorism from whatever side it comes. I abhor cowards who murder innocent people. Nevertheless, I believe that the holding of innocent people for a period and then releasing them drives them to adopt an anti-police stance.
I do not know whether the Home Secretary appreciates that people who are held under this Act and who are subsequently released without being charged feel that a stigma is attached to them. In many cases they have lost their jobs because they were detained.
Therefore, as a democrat and someone who supports civil liberties, I will willingly go into the Lobby tonight, as I have in previous years, and vote against the renewal of these provisions.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I suspect that we have only a few minutes left. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for many of them.
It is a disgrace that we should have to debate this matter in only one and a half hours. It deserves the attention of the House for much longer than that.
I accept that the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) are very strong, but there is a suspicion—perhaps more than a suspicion—that the


powers of arrest and detention are used in practice when there is no reason to suspect that a person is involved in terrorism. Indeed, the figures show that to be the case. In the last three months, 146 out of 179 people detained were released. Therefore, I have doubts about the continuation of this legislation. I wish that we could debate it at six-monthly instead of 12-monthly intervals.
I should like to put two questions to the Home Secretary. Surely there is now a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain, in that a solicitor has to be present within 48 hours under the Bennett rules in Northern Ireland, whereas that does not happen in this country. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that people are detained for six or seven days without being allowed access to a solicitor. Surely the Home Office should deal with that matter promptly. Anyone who is detained should have access to a solicitor almost immediately.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not agreed to the provision of financial assistance to relatives and others. Is there not provision within the police force to provide such financial assistance anyway? At a reception held by the Home Secretary I sat next to the deputy commissioner of police and got away with £20 for one of my constituents who had coughed up £20 for her son, who had been wrongly arrested in Newcastle. In fact, the Metropolitan Police provided the finance for his fare for his trip back. I think that such help should be available and should not have to be provided for in legislation.
Finally, I am disappointed that the Home Secretary has decided to retain section 11. I realise that there may be some cases pending and this may be sub judice, but until recently the section had hardly been used. I do not like that section at all. I hope that within the next 12 months it will be dropped.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I want to make one brief point. The fact that these measures are considered by my right hon. Friend to be sufficient for dealing with the serious problem of terrorism in this country, notwithstanding the list of atrocities that has been referred

to by himself and by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), is due, in my view, to the efficiency, devotion and loyalty of the security services, particularly the police force and its Special Branch.
This moment ought not to pass without someone saying how grateful we all are to the police and the security services, particularly for their help and activity on election day. There was an opportunity for the terrorists to strike. They were unable to do so—they failed to do so—because of the efficiency of the police and security forces. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to express very strong and sincere thanks to those forces for bringing us here safely, so that we can take part in these proceedings.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I do not think that there is any chance of anyone converting anyone else in this debate. A handful of hon. Members will vote against the legislation, as we have done consistently. Contrary to what some hon. Members may think about us, we are all lovers of constitutional liberty and have fought against illiberalism for all our lives.
First, I protest that this legislation has to go through at this time of night, and at the failure to give us sufficient time to debate it. One of my hon. Friends suggested that I should speak for only a few minutes. He had to do that; but I regret it. I should like to speak for much longer.
The fact that we are having to debate the renewal of these powers is due to the political failure of both sides of the House to solve this terrible problem. We have failed to grapple with the problem properly in political terms precisely because the House can fall back on such illiberalism as the renewal of the order. Until we make an attempt to grapple with the problem we shall go on with these pitiful renewals.
The Act is a positive minefield of illiberalism, which endangers the civil liberties of innocent citizens and fails to bring to account almost anyone who is guilty. Under the pretext of preserving law and order it not only fails to prevent terrorism, it terrorises the innocent.
The Act also threatens the labour movement. The innocent have their fingerprints taken and they are kept on file. I do not know why that is done, but it is a fact. In addition, the Act is racialist. It encourages naked racialism against the Irish community in this country.

Mr. Stevens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for far too long, which is why not all of my hon. Friends who wish to take part in the debate will be able to do so.
As far as I know, there is no evidence that anyone has been found guilty under the Act who would not have been found guilty if the Act had never existed. If that is untrue, I should like to hear the evidence.

Mr. Lawrence: What does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Flannery: The trite tribute that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) paid is the sort of thing that he does regularly.
The Act terrorises the innocent and not the guilty, who carry on regardless, just as murderers would carry on even if we accepted the views of those who believe in capital punishment. The Act was born in the hysteria after the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. It was born in an atmosphere of witch-hunt and retribution, which continues. That is the only result of the Act.
The measure does not prevent terrorism, but it does prevent legitimate political activity, and it gives carte blanche to anyone, in uniform or not, to harass and terrorise innocent people. Massive evidence of that can be given by any of my hon. Friends.
I particularly regret the terrorising of the Irish community in Britain, but the Act infringes civil liberties on a considerable scale. For example, as soon as the Act was passed, Tetley brewers told their licensees not to allow meetings in their pubs. That immediately stopped Irish societies from holding meetings in Tetley pubs.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), whose wages we do not know about, will take note

of a recent article in the Police Review on public order and the police. It said:
A much simpler action to prevent many of our present troubles would be to declare the National Front, the Socialist Workers' Party or whatever party is causing trouble to be a proscribed organisation under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
There is the spirit of witch-hunt and retribution, calling for the proscription of groups that have nothing proven against them under the Act.
The powers of arrest and detention are such that the police may arrest any person whom they "reasonably suspect" to be guilty of an offence under the Act. Thousands are arrested and may be kept initially for 48 hours, but, if the Home Secretary says so, for another five days as well. We have been told that only four such people have been found guilty, and they could have been found guilty even without the Act.
We do not have much time, and I must conclude. I have always been unconvinced that the Act is necessary. I prefer the European Convention on Human Rights, which says:
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
This pernicious and illiberal Act prevents that. I shall therefore vote once again against the order.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to make it clear that along with those of my hon. Friends who have criticised this Act, I am totally opposed to any act of terrorism. However, the Act may have the reverse effect; it may shove people towards terrorism rather than prevent it.
I have a family in my constituency in which the father was kneecapped for refusing to give his car to a hijacker. He came to my constituency in order to get away from the troubles. One of his sons was sentenced to imprisonment in Northern Ireland for a non-political offence. He served his time. He was given home leave, with the full approval of the governor, to visit his family. The governor notified the Special Branch that he was coming to my constituency. Of course, it obliged by turning up armed at Leeds-Bradford airport. The man was arrested and put inside Armley goal. At the end of that time


he was prevented from seeing his family. He was sent back to Belfast prison.
At no other time was that man outside prison, except when he was transported from the prison to the airport in Northern Ireland. How can the Home Secretary justify putting an exclusion order on a man who was in detention under the control of a fellow Cabinet Member? The family has now broken up. Perhaps the Home Secretary made a mistake. I wish that he would admit it. The problem is that he probably will not. An innocent person therefore suffers. On release from prison this man was confined to Northern Ireland. His family lives in my constituency. The mother has returned to Northern Ireland with some of the children in order to start a home there. The father has remained in my constituency but he is waiting to return.
This family, the O'Hagans, has been broken up by the arbitrary fiat of the Home Secretary. There has been no trial. No charges have been brought. There is an aura of arbitrary decision about the case. It has drawn that family nearer to the troubles that they wished to avoid. That is why I shall oppose this order.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Fryer) asked whether I would admit a mistake. Of course I admit mistakes. The hon. Member knows that advisers look at exclusion orders. That is only proper. I have great difficulty in making up my mind about such cases. Of course, should be the first to admit it if the adviser said that I was wrong. The order can be revoked. It has been done in the past and it will be done again.
I cannot possibly hope to answer all the questions that have been put to me. I regard this Act and its justification as very important. I therefore personally undertake to write to every hon. Member who has raised a point. I shall give them the facts myself. I shall do so because I am personally responsible. As time is short, that is the best way to help those hon. Members to whom I am unable to reply tonight.
I do not accept the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I accept the points made by the hon. Member for

Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who said that the purpose of the Act was to protect innocent people in this country. We should look at the innocent people from time to time.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked why section 11 was necessary. He realises, of course, that 13 people have been charged under that section. He remembers the 11 that were charged when he was in office. It is too early to be sure that that part of the Act is unnecessary.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned section 62. Statistical evidence for 1978 was published in the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Constabulary. Statistics for 1979 will be published shortly in a Home Office statistical bulletin.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for his remarks. He asked about co-operation with other countries. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, South knows, that co-operation has been developing successfully in recent years.
In the past few weeks I have seen the Minister of the Interior for West Germany, Herr Baum, and the French Minister, M. Bonnet, and we discussed some of the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. We exchanged valuable information. I believe that it would be quite wrong for me to go further than that.
My hon. Friend asked me about the strength of the Special Branch of the security services. I hope that it is adequate for the purpose. If not, I shall soon be informed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for what he said about the police, and I thank other hon. Members who made similar remarks.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked me about access to solicitors. That is being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. We should await that report before deciding what action should be taken. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) was worried about


records being permanently kept. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) also mentioned the matter. The answer is that records are kept, and as long as the Act is in force they will be. It comes back to what the hon. Member for Itchen said. The records provide valuable information, and in doing so they play a part in saving lives, which is quite proper.
I note what has been said about financial compensation, but I am afraid that that was the view that I reached, and I feel that I must hold to it.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) asked about the length of time that advisers take to consider cases referred to them under section 7. I am afraid that I cannot give him an exact time. It depends on a number of factors—whether the interview has been requested, how quickly the excluded per-

son submits substantive representations, and whether the adviser—as he sometimes does—requests further information. Those are the factors that determine time. If I can go further than that I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

I have done my best in a few minutes to reply to many of the substantive points made. Perhaps I may return to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I must tell him that I believe that the exclusion orders are necessary to protect life. They have done so and can be seen to do so. At the same time, I recognise that they are, as he says—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 26.

Division No. 215]
AYES
[12.57 am


Alexander, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Ancram, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Arnold, Tom
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Rhodes James, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bendall, Vivian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hawkins, Paul
Rossi, Hugh


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Best, Keith
Heddle, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Blackburn, John
Hooson, Tom
Silvester, Fred


Bradford, Rev. R.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sims, Roger


Bright, Graham
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Speller, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Brittan, Leon
Kershaw, Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lang, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Brotherton, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stevens, Martin


Bulmer, Esmond
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Butcher, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tebbit, Norman


Cadbury, Jocelyn
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Thompson, Donald


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marland, Paul
Trippier, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Marlow, Tony
Waddington, David


Chapman, Sydney
Mather, Carol
Wakeham, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Clegg, Sir Walter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Waller, Gary


Cope, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Costain, A. P.
Mitchell, R. C (Soton, Itchen)
Watson, John


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Moate, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Dickens. Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James
Wheeler, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northamoton, Sth)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Whitney, Raymond


Dover, Denshore
Murphy, Christopher
Wickenden, Keith


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Nelson, Anthony
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Eyre, Reginald
Neubert, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Newton, Tony



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Forrester, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Mr. Robert Boscowen and


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Parris, Matthew
Mr. John MacGregor


Golding, John
Percival, Sir Ian





NOES


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dubs, Alfred
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitt, Gerard
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin F.
Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Cryer, Bob
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maxton, John




Maynard, Miss Joan
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive
Mr. Ian Mikardo and


Race, Reg
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Dennis Canavan.


Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INVALID DIRECTION) BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Cope.]

WIDOWS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a subject that will be of concern to more than 3 million widows in the United Kingdom. The House may remember that in my maiden speech I devoted a certain amount of time to the problems faced by widows in general and working widows in particular. I became more aware of the problems of widows as a result of the general election campaign. My experience was not unusual. I am certain that the vast majority of candidates representing the three major political parties would have found during that campaign that widows within the various constituencies approached them asking for their support for the case put forward by the National Association of Widows.
My concern, both during the general election campaign and subsequently, has been strengthened largely because of the large number of widows who work in industrial constituencies such as mine. Before I develop my theme and highlight some of these problems, it is important to emphasise that similar problems are faced by one-parent families, a matter of which I am becoming increasingly aware.
I am naturally pleased that the Minister who is to reply to the debate is my

hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State; because of his close interest in matters of this kind I am confident that he will already be aware of much that I wish to say. Because of his knowledge of the work of the National Association of Widows, I am equally certain that the association will have earned his respect as it has earned mine, and I hope that this will prompt him to give me a favourable reply.
A woman immediately becomes a single woman for tax purposes as soon as she becomes a widow. The single person's tax allowance is £1,165. That compares very unfavourably with the married man's allowance which is currently standing at £1,815. If the man's wife works, both partners can enjoy the single person's allowance of £1,165 plus two salaries.
A widow has one salary plus her widow's pension, a maximum of £23·30 a week, with a tax allowance of only £22·40 a week. This effectively means that should a widow continue to work after her husband's death, or find she has to go to work, she will be taxed on every penny that she earns. Yet she still has the same overheads as when her husband was alive. She will still have to pay the rent or the mortgage. She will still have to pay the domestic rate to the council. She will still have to feed and clothe herself and pay for heating, lighting, and so on. Very often these expenses do not diminish on the death of a husband.
Like many hon. Members, I was delighted that in the last Budget my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer exempted the whole of the war widow's pension from tax. Although there is a great deal of sympathy both here and elsewhere for those who suffered such a tragic loss as a result of their husbands being killed in the service of their country, I argue that outside the war there are many deaths that are no lfess tragic, be they at work, in the home, in a car, or wherever. The sense of loss is exactly the same for the widow, and she has the unenviable task of trying to start a new life for herself and possibly her family. If it is right to exempt war widows' pensions from


tax—and it is—why is it wrong to exempt other widows? Cannot the Chancellor consider exempting part of the pension from tax in precisely the same way as previous Chancellors began to exempt the war widow's pension?
I spoke earlier of the circumstances in which a widow may find that she has to go out to work to enable her to make ends meet. There are, of course, other circumstances in which a widow may wish to go out to work through choice. there are numerous examples of widows going to work for purely therapeutic reasons. Irrespective of the motivating reason behind the decision to work, the widow should not be penalised by being taxed on every penny that she earns.
This brings me to my second suggestion, which is an alternative to exempting some of the pension from tax. Could not the Chancellor consider the introduction of a special widow's tax allowance to fall approximately halfway between a single person's and a married man's allowance?
Cognisance is already taken of the fact that a widow may have to bring up children within the family home. If those children are under 19 years of age, an additional tax allowance of £650 is allowed, and rightly so. However, no recognition is made of the fact that the financial commitments of the family home still have to be met or, more to the point, that the husband might well have died when he was at the peak of his earning capacity. If the widow has then to go out to work, or chooses to do so, there is no chance that she will start employment at the peak of her earning capacity. Quite the reverse; she may be lucky to find employment at all. If everything else that I say is forgotten, I beg the House to remember that widows do not want charity. They want to ensure that they are able to maintain their spirit of pride and independence and to take their rightful place in society.
So far I have dealt with the way in which widows are discriminated against for tax reasons. I now wish to turn to other anomalies that adversely affect widows. The most glaring example concerns the widow's allowance, a benefit which is paid for the first 26 weeks of widowhood, provided that national insurance contribution requirements are met

and which is the only short-term benefit which is taxable.

Mr. Tony Speller: Will my hon. Friend agree, in his strong and logical condemnation of the present system, that widows, particularly new widows, are the most discriminated-against members of society? Will he not also agree that as we continue moving towards a more civilised society we should recognise that a widow has all the problems of the married family without the advantage of the male partner to look after her interests?

Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the case that I am making. I think that there is an answer to the overlap of benefits. I simply believe that they should be free from tax.
The second anomaly concerns those widows who pay full national insurance contributions and yet do not receive the benefits for which they have contributed. A widow in receipt of a full pension of £23·30 will not receive sickness or unemployment benefit, or industrial injury benefit. If the widow in receipt of an age-related pension is paying full contributions she will receive only the difference between the two. The National Association of Widows has evidence of a widow who was pregnant when her husband was killed and who had paid full national insurance contributions for all her working married life but was refused a maternity grant because she was then in receipt of a widow's allowance. That is abhorrent.
Further evidence could be supplied of a widow who was taken ill and awarded invalidity benefit on her own record of full national insurance contributions. This benefit was withdrawn immediately she became a widow, because she was awarded a widow's allowance. Those widows not entitled to receive sickness or unemployment benefit because they are in receipt of full widow's pension should not be forced to pay full national insurance contributions. That is virtually taking money under false pretences.
The House should be reminded that a childless widow under 40 years of age receives no pension and if widowed between the ages of 40 and 50 receives only a reduced pension. Do the Government


assume that widows under the age of 40 will remarry? What right have they so to decide? If a woman has had a very happy marriage, often she would not wish to remarry, for obvious reasons.
The Government also assume that because child benefits are withdrawn when the child reaches 19 years of age, a child could be deprived of the opportunity of achieving higher qualifications. These are some of the main financial problems facing widows. To return to the point that I made earlier, I make no apology for the fact that the main plank of my platform is to fight for fairer tax treatment.
Successive Governments have chosen to tackle the problems of widows by increasing their pension. Obviously, while this is welcome, I hope that I have demonstrated that by increasing the pension, which is, more or less, in line with the single person's tax allowance, there is not, and never will be, any incentive or reward in a widow working.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The House will be grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I hope that the Minister of State will bear in mind the support given by so many of my hon Friends this evening, in spite of the financial restrictions.

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful for that observation.
Another vagary is that a pension increase in April which is not paid until November is virtually valueless by the time it is received. The time is long overdue for the ending of discrimination against widows by the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that my speech will ensure official recognition of widowhood as a tragic but honourable status.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) on raising an important subject. I recognise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), that this subject moves the whole House. The evidence of that is that about a dozen of my hon. Friends have chosen to stay at this late hour to listen to the important contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. He has a

long and honourable record. We all recall his maiden speech, in which he discussed the problem. He is a member of the all-party committee on widows and one-parent families. He has previously drawn the Government's attention to the problem. It is a matter of great concern to this and all Administrations. I have received a delegation from the National Association of Widows, led ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North Mr. Durant), and we have studied the widows' charter with care.
I am precluded from anticipating the Budget. That is a melancholy restriction because I should like to cover the range of problems that were so lucidly and eloquently dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. He will understand my constraints. I shall touch upon the dimensions of the problem so that the House may judge the confines within which any Administration must consider what, if anything, they can do for widows. I recognise that the year of death poses particular problems for widows. Both the emotional and economic problems of readjustment must be faced. The expenses of a household are not necessarily halved on the death of a husband.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: An excellent speech has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) and I hope that the Minister will convey the feeling of the House to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it is worthy of his attention.

Mr. Rees: I assure the House that the Chancellor will be informed of the debate. I shall convey to him the points raised.
We recognise that the year of death is a year of stress and difficulty for widows. The expenses of a household are not automatically halved by such a sad event.
To put the dimension of the problem in its true perspective, I must stress that a family would not, in fiscal terms, be worse off in the year of death. The husband would have received his full married allowances for that year, and there is no clawback on his death. The widow will receive a full single person's allowance, and if she has a child she will receive an additional allowance. In


crude fiscal terms—I emphasise "fiscal", as it is only one small aspect of the problems faced by a widow—the family would be slightly better off.
My hon. Friend touched on the widows' allowance paid for the first 26 weeks of widowhood, which, as with all short-term benefits, is subject to tax. That matter was raised at Question Time not so long ago. As I said at that time to the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), the anomaly could be cured in two ways. It is not for me to anticipate in which way, if any, my right hon. and learned Friend may choose to approach the problem.
I touch briefly on the position of a working widow. It is not strictly accurate to say that a working widow is taxed more heavily than a married woman. A working widow has two sources of income—her widow's pension and her earnings. A married woman has only a single source of income, namely, her salary. Naturally, the quantum of tax would be a little different. The new PAYE arrangements that are to be applied to pensions do not affect in any way the quantum of tax payable.
My hon. Friend made an interesting suggestion—one that has been made before by the national association—that there should be a special tax allowance for widows. If a widow were to receive more than a single person's allowance, plus any additional allowance for children, she would, in effect, be receiving more than a married man with a wife who does not work, and with a child. It is a matter for debate whether a widow should be put in such an advantageous position. I am stating that merely as a question of simple arithmetic. It would be for my right hon. and learned Friend, and eventually the House, to decide how the problem should be attaacked.
My hon. Friend touched also on benefits. As the House will appreciate, I am not well qualified to deal with that problem. It is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security. However, I shall touch on one point raised, namely, the overlapping benefits.
It is true that a widow is entitled to receive only the higher of two benefits to which she might otherwise be entitled—

either her widow's benefit or, for example, sickness benefit. She is in no different a position from any other claimant, although her position might be regarded as more pressing. I emphasise that widows are the only group of beneficiaries under our social security system who are entitled to full maintenance benefit while of working age, without any earnings disqualification.
I am not saying that that mitigates the tragedy of a widow's position, but it demonstrates that the social security system takes some account of that problem.

Mr. Keith Best: I am sure that all Members in the House will appreciate that in the present economic climate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scope is limited. It is sad that there are no Opposition Members listening to the debate, as I am sure that many of them would share that view. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take on board the fact that it is essential to try to accommodate the transition from a married status to a widowed status in that initial traumatic stage. If emphasis could be laid upon that I am sure that that would remove many of the problems that these people presently feel.

Mr. Rees: I am sure the whole House is grateful for that point, which amplifies what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale said in his opening remarks. Of course, one recognises the problems of adjusting, not only emotionally but, particularly, economically. Alas, there is little that we can do in this House to ease the process of emotional adjustment. But, of course, I appreciate the problems of economic adjustment, when possibly the principal breadwinner of the family has been lost, with all the traumas that follow from that. I must stress that for that year that point has been recognised by the fact that the family as a whole is slightly better off in fiscal terms. I shall not debate with my hon. Friends whether sufficient has been done. I think that they recognise the constraints under which this and any Government have to operate at the present time. However, I have taken careful note of that point and I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend takes note of it when he finally frames his Budget measures.
I congratulate my hon. Friend. I think that he has done a service to the whole House by raising this issue. It is a pity that there is not a wider representation in the House to hear the points that he has made with such eloquence and lucidity. I know that he appreciates the particular difficulties under which anyone speaking in my position operates. Alas, in the run-up to a Budget, I cannot be as forthcoming as I should like. However, I assure my hon. Friend that his points

will be fully borne in mind by my right hon. and learned Friend in his deliberations in the weeks to come. I am sure that those outside who read our debates will feel that a most important subject has been sympathetically and adequately ventilated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.